Learning & practising Sociocracy

thank you Abbie, Kayleigh and Pete. Very interesting and useful.

Thanks again everyone for coming to the session. I'm not sure what's next but maybe people can share thoughts / ideas here and we can see where that goes. I'll share the questions and recording asap. Zoom says it's 'processing' the recording, so hopefully it will work!

Many thanks to you too Abbie! I thought it was a hugely useful and enjoyable session. It may not have been obvious (as I did all the talking for Greencity) but there were six people from Greencity attending. And yes, in future we'll need to find a way to avoid having me hog the laptop... And several people who couldn't participate but who would very much like to see the video when it's finished processing.

Personally, I'd like to complete Pete's proposal session, learn more about sociocracy in smaller teams, and keep practicing in a supportive group so that I'm ready when we start making proposals to the wider co-op. And, although it's maybe a little too soon to be so ambitious, I'd like to consider Kate's original idea that sociocracy be considered for SolidFund governance.

Thanks @johnn Have you thought about getting the six of you together to follow SoFA's Empowered Learning Circle curriculum? http://www.sociocracyforall.org/elc/
It's by donation and relatively inexpensive if you go for the option with a coach supporting you, which is what we did. It's a mixture of theory and practical exercises so you really get to learn how it works. We highly recommend it.

That's not something that we've thought about, but obviously we will now - I remember seeing that you'd done it, but without really knowing the details. @kirstywarren is drawing up a plan for our group's study, I'll make sure she's aware of this option - thank you!

(Apologies, @abbiekempson , that should have been a reply to your comment above)

On the question a few of us raised about 'the difference between sociocracy and consensus done well', I just found this article, which I think offers a clear explanation: https://www.cohousing.org/node/2610

The short version: "Sociocracy and consensus are not opposite things. Sociocracy is based on consensus decision-making. Consensus is a decision-making method. Sociocracy is a governance method. Sociocracy establishes a structure for using consensus to make policy decisions (the planning and leading) and operations (the doing)."

I learned a lot from cohousing people. Excellently experienced and thought out cooperative team building. People first and then finance once the people are cooperating. Just what I like. The best writer on intentional communities, very practical but well versed in theory, I think is Diana Leafe Christian. She has videos about Sociocracy on YouTube, Ive just discovered.

Another is Starhawk who wrote The Empowerment Manual : A Guide for Collaborative Groups, one of the best manuals of practical cooperation. Based on her experience in intentional cohousing communities in the USA. Its available on t'internet for free.

Bob

Yes, they have many similarities and also differences. When people say they are opposites I think they are usually referring to the difference: that for many people consensus implies seeking a situation where everyone agrees; whereas consent works by seeking a situation where no one disagrees (enough to stop someone acting)?

In my mind sociocracy is a structure, a method of governance and a decision making process. It's also in my mind a way of behaving (a culture).

thanks all for your words that I'm reading with interest, following the call.

That's a very common misunderstanding of consensus that you mention Pete, when it gets equated with unanimity. There are problems with seeking unanimity, and it can enable brow-beating, like what was called 'militant sociocracy' on the call :laughing: I think there might be more similarities in culture and process than we might think :wink:

For more about these issues, take a look (& do please comment) at http://rhizome.coop/consensus-decision-making-what-it-is-and-what-it-is-not/

If an organisation or network uses consensus decision-making, the question for me then is how to make that work at scale, and that's where the structure and governance come in. One good option is sociocracy.

Hi @adamfromrhizome - very well said.

As so often, the difficulty is perhaps that people see the world differently and interpret words in their own way.

Perhaps it would be better to throw away words like consent and consensus and come up with new terms that don't come with popular associations! But then there is also value in asking "what do you mean by xxxx?"! If out of that comes more understanding.

PS I very much like your descriptions on the rhizome website - lots of similarities!

By the way here are the topics that probably need further exploration - generated by the group on the 24th https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M2m2_yXUtIGt8c9l_SMVDEy2vWCb7dUJtQ0dODDviAM/edit?usp=drivesdk

Thanks @peteburden & @abbiekempson for these notes, I hadn't realised they were there. I'll read & inwardly digest before our next session. :slight_smile:

I have started to add some comments to clarify the questions, and may start to add some answers too.

Hi everyone,
I posted this on the other thread on Weds, reposing here in case it was missed. Hope it's helpful to do that and not just spamming you all with the same long message!
.........................
I didn’t get any time yesterday, but here’s a follow-up from Monday’s session.

The Sociocracy for All article I mentioned is this one, ABCDE of Culture Change

The zoom recording is here:
Zoom (temporary) recording
Unicorn google-drive recording
Unfortunately it’s too large a file to live in the zoom cloud without us paying lots more cash to keep it there, so I’ve had to upload it to Unicorn’s google drive in the expectation that zoom will delete it soon - when you access it it may need me to give you permission, so apologies if there’s a delay. I've downloaded it to a pc in case this doesn't work.
I did consider accidentally deleting it as it’s recorded in speaker view rather than gallery view (I was sure I’d set it to that and will make sure next time), but I resisted!

It seemed like there was a lot of interest in a second session. I’m happy to take part in that and we can use Unicorn’s zoom again. Pete, perhaps you should lead the session for a practical exercise and debrief this time? If time at the end a discussion on people’s ideas for what next?

Some questions posed that I didn’t get to answer in the session:

How does the interface between sociocratic teams and the rest of the co-op work?
The Veg circle, which is comprised of the coordinators and delegates for each sub-circle sends its delegate to our Forum. In this way it’s not much different to our other teams who send a rep to Forum meetings - the feedback system is a little different and veg now have their own newsletter which is circulated to all sub-circles to ensure everyone’s in the loop with Forum.

In other teams we’ve started introducing elements of sociocracy such as open selections process rather than secret ballot elections for team overviews, so this is a mix of old and new (overview rather than coordinator and delegate, but an opportunity to try out the sociocratic method). We’ve also added in other complementary elements such as using rounds in some meetings.

Our intention is to bring a proposal to the co-op to go for a full transition to sociocracy rather than a phased introduction team by team, but we’re seeing a phased introduction of tools and techniques as more members attend our training sessions and want to take things back to their teams.

I’m sure there will be bumps in the road, but we’re hoping that there’s so much commonality with what we do now it won’t be too difficult. We’ll see!

How does the People circle work in Veg vis-a-vis HR team?
The Veg people circle does cover some HR functions, and it is working with support from our Personnel team (onee of whom is a member of our sociocracy implementation group), but its remit is fairly broad and is a crossover between HR and training and H&S etc. Its domains are: addressing team training needs, induction of probationers, looking at staffing needs and liaising with our Ops Planning team as needed, looking at the spread of roles and responsibilities held across the circles, working on role descriptions, thinking about well-being and H&S.

Team sizes
Our existing teams vary from four people to around 25. The ideal sociocratic circle size is 4 to 7, so our redesign proposal will work towards that, but with some flexibility based on the type of team and its levels of decision-making versus operational stuff (based on consultation with members and support from SoFA).

How self-managing is the system, will it take a lot of time input (tricky in co-ops without a lot of management time)?
For us this remains to be seen. For some things hopefully it will be a quick learning process and easy integration of new methods, for others I think there will need to be quite a bit more support and help to embed them. Ultimately though we believe sociocracy is adaptable to needs and wants of particular groups, so if we can help people move into the consent and equal voice culture, hopefully strict adherence to the sociocratic rules won’t be such an issue.

What are the workload implications for sub-circles and the time cost of the roles?
We are very much still working this out, but we hope that our current meeting system with large teams coming together fortnightly will balance with smaller circle-based groups perhaps needing a little more time to work well. E.g. the veg meeting was 20+ member hours a fortnight depending on attendance, the circles are using the same amount of time but are creating space for much more active management and progress on team goals. So that should be a net gain for the co-op. We have learned that embedding the new roles is taking a little time, and giving people support to fully understand and start implementing the coordinator, delegate, secretary and facilitator roles is an initial time investment.

What’s the difference between consent and consensus done well / done in smaller groups?
I don’t think I have a very clear answer to this yet on a practical basis, I’m definitely still learning, and we think our version of consensus at Unicorn is very similar to consent. The crucial difference for us though is that we ask ‘can you live with this proposal’ in consensus, and invite people’s personal preferences and opinions into play, in consent we ask ’can you work with this proposal / would accepting this proposal hinder us doing our work together to meet our stated aims?’ - that leads us more into range of tolerance than personal preference, and actively accepting reasoned objections. In consensus, objections can lead to blocks and stalling something because it’s not perfect, whereas in consent we’re looking for ‘good enough for now, safe enough to try’ to push something into action. If we don’t try we don’t know. So if there are objections, we’re asking what could go wrong if we do this? Let’s figure out how we measure that and see if these things do indeed happen, then we can reassess and try something else if we need to.

What about Policy?
I’ve forgotten the exact question here, but in case it’s useful I’ve copied and pasted from our in-house training guide on sociocracy to outline the difference between circle policy and Unicorn policy.
In sociocracy, all circles make policy to set guidelines for how they do their work. It’s quite different to how we define and understand policy at the moment:

Policy at Unicorn
A written document establishing a course of action, principle or rule of conduct proposed and approved by all members during a general meeting. The purpose of a policy is not to iron out the details of day-to-day operation. Rather, a policy will:

• shape and develop the co-operative
• protect members or Unicorn
• define workers’ rights or entitlements, or
• put a specific area of Unicorn’s ethics into practice.

Circle policy is about creating agreements to help with how the circle is organised, and for operational work e.g. for when x happens, we do z. The purpose is twofold: firstly it’s about clarity, so everyone knows what’s agreed and expected for the work we do together, and secondly it’s to save time, by making ‘bulk decisions’ that cover what to do every time x happens (e.g. dealing with a specific delivery, or common customer complaint), rather than dealing with x individually on every occasion it arises, and bringing the discussion of how it was/should be dealt with to the meeting each time.

Thanks Abbie, that is fantastic, you are going way beyond the call of duty! :slight_smile:

Hi All. This webinar may be of interest: 'Insider view on decision making. Experiences of Dynamic Governance (Sociocracy) in Pioneer Valley Cohousing' run by Sociocracy for all.
(https://www.eventbrite.com/e/insider-view-on-decision-making-experiences-of-dynamic-governance-in-pioneer-valley-cohousing-tickets-50421935366?mc_cid=e088cc2ef4&mc_eid=b805bfa838)

Thanks Kiri, I saw this too & signed up for it. 12 noon in Boston is 5pm here, right?

I think it’s 4pm because the clocks go back end October. I’ve also signed up.

oh yes indeed, I got my 'summer time ends' mixed up with my 'daylight saving time ends' :laughing:

Looks interesting @kirilangmead3 - thanks.

Btw here's an interesting new book from John Buck (author of "We the People" - one of the best books on Sociocracy, IMHO).

'Bossa nova - Company-wide Agility with Beyond Budgeting, Open Space & Sociocracy: Survive & Thrive on Disruption'

Looks like they are trying to connect up a number of approaches to help with creating more agile orgs.

From my perspective (Organisational Development - which is largely methodologically neutral) - this makes a quite a bit of sense.

From the blurb:

'Many experts are looking into implementing company-wide Agility. Yet, they work from one perspective. For example: 

A Beyond Budgeting expert might say, "Stop fixing the budget annually, because otherwise you won't have the flexibility to react to frequent market changes."

An Open Space expert might say, "You need to make space for what you don’t know and can’t control, for totally new things to emerge. If people can follow their passion, you will be able to implement company-wide Agility, otherwise people will just do what they are asked."

A Sociocracy expert might say, "You first need to resolve the power structure, because as long as you have a hierarchy defined as top-down you will not become agile."

An Agile expert might say, "You need to start inspecting and adapting by using regular retrospectives in order to react flexibly, otherwise you will neither be able to learn from the market nor from within your company."

All of these perspectives are true, but the perspective is always from within the discipline. Our new perspective synthesizes these approaches and invites you to take a new, overview perspective that can truly address the challenges of doing business in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world.'

(In other words always be cautious with 'experts'!)

https://leanpub.com/bossanova

(Thanks Martin and Francois from Caterfly.co.uk for the heads up about the book.)

There's a website also with a load of vids etc. at https://www.agilebossanova.com

thnx Graham

@katewhittle, @kayleighwalsh, @abbiekempson and I have talked and we'll be running a followup session to the one on the 24th September on Friday 19th October at 2pm - 330.

We'll try to complete the run through of the decision-making process that we started last time. And if there's time gather and answer more questions.

Please also take a look at the questions and answers from last time https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M2m2_yXUtIGt8c9l_SMVDEy2vWCb7dUJtQ0dODDviAM/edit?usp=drivesdk.

Hope to see you.

@abbiekempson - can you confirm the Zoom link again - Thx.

Pete

Thanks Pete! :pray:

Thanks @peteburden The session can be joined using this zoom link: https://zoom.us/j/444762701

Thanks Abbie!

Just a reminder that tomorrow afternoon - Friday 19th October at 2pm until 330 we'll be running a second session on Sociocracy - where we will try to do a (demo) run-through of making a decision by consent.

I think this is one of the most useful aspects of Sociocracy - and, as we discussed, probably an attitude as well as a practical process that we can use together.

I am hoping @abbiekempson and @kayleighwalsh will be helping me with the reaction rounds etc. The Zoom link is above and here https://zoom.us/j/444762701

It would be great to know if you're planning to be there. All welcome!

I hope to attend.

I'm aiming to be there, but will need to drop out at 3 as I need to get my daughter from school.

My colleague Fiona will be representing Greencity, however me and @kirstywarren are both hoping to be around, possibly sitting in and taking notes.

Yes I will be there, thanks for the reminder @peteburden :thumbsup:

Great - Please note we are starting at 2 not 2:30 (as last time).

apologies all for blobbing, a bob diary malfunction

Thanks everybody for coming along yesterday. It felt a bit bumpy at times - which I think was largely to do with using zoom. Good experiment though - we learnt a lot.

One thing I wanted to acknowledge specifically were the questions about 'critical concerns'. As @abbiekempson said they use a different formulation at Unicorn. I personally like the form 'do you have any critical concerns?' because the question asks me to look inside myself and try to sense whether I do or not.

Sometimes people talk about 'is this a proposal you can live with?' Or a way to grasp this is can I give this my full support if we (as a group) decide this is the best way into action?

For me it is more of a 'felt sense', than anything else.

Thank you Pete (and @abbiekempson and @kayleighwalsh ). The Greencity views on bumpiness were split - @kirstywarren had participated in sociocratic rounds at the WCW and felt the bumps; Fiona and I were both newbies and didn't. So I suspect you're right about Zoom. I agree we learnt a lot, and important stuff too given that @katewhittle first started this discussion with a view to using sociocracy with Solidfund. I think Greencity need to practice face-to-face, to learn that "felt sense" you mention, but I feel more confident that we can in the future apply sociocracy online as well.

Some of you will know that I have finally sent emails out inviting worker coop HR workers to join a CoopHR group. To share experience, ideas, contacts etc.
There will be support from Nottongham Business School HR department who are researching 'HR without management authority'.
We talked about it at the WCW.
At first this will be a group email until decision what platform to use.
If you want to be part of this group please send me your preferred email, to bob@cbc.coop.
Im getting it together until we can decide how to properly organise.
See you,
Bob

I guess it's because I'm a newbie that I felt it was fine. I certainly learnt a lot. Although it seemed to me a rather 'forensic' examination of the different concerns, which I suspect a group new to sociocracy might find frustrating. Especially a group with heavy workloads and on the lower end of the payscale. It would be important to have everyone on board trusting that once we've got the hang of it, exploring people's different concerns would be smoother. Thanks a lot to @peteburden @kayleighwalsh and @abbiekempson

I think that's a very good point @katewhittle. There is definitely something about adapting the process to the people using it, in terms of adjusting the questions/explanation etc. A good way to get a feel for this is probably just to watch different groups doing it. I guess a group of gene scientists might use different language from assembly line workers (although my view, of course, is that all people and groups can equally express their consent or dissent in the right circumstances, and that we can actively support that by becoming more aware of our own personal tendencies to suppress opportunities for dissent. )

Thanks for the session, and apologies for having to drop out before the end of the meeting. One thing that I found interesting, and I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, is that it felt as if, although @kayleighwalsh had made the proposal, having done so the proposal became the property of the group very quickly. Yes, Kayleigh responded to clarifying questions, but once alternative proposals began being put forward, there appeared to be no questions along the lines of "Kayleigh, having made the original proposal, would you be comfortable with this new version which is different?", i.e. she no longer had ownership of the issue. Of course everyone, including Kayleigh, had the opportunity to express their views about any alternative proposal suggested, but her unique position as the instigator was apparently lost. (I think @katewhittle mentioned something to this effect in the discussion, and of course having missed the end it may have been picked up on further).

Is it a good thing? I'm not sure. On the whole I tend to think that it is a good thing, and that ownership of the issue effectively becomes shared. On the other hand I can envisage a scenario where a potentially much more complex proposal is put forward, one that has required a good deal of work to develop (not wishing to play down Kayleigh's proposal, which was well crafted given the purpose of the discussion), and I wonder whether in that scenario the same approach would apply, or whether the proposer/owner of the proposal would have had more of an influential role in the discussion. Not sure if I'm making myself clear with this, so apologies for that, but if this is making sense I'd be interested in others' thoughts on this.

Thanks @peteburden and @kayleighwalsh for the session, and to everyone who came along :)

A few of us stayed on the call to discuss follow-up options. We'd like to propose a third session, but this time as a meeting to talk about what people would like to do to take this forward rather than a delivered session. So the agenda will be more fluid, but the aim will be to have a series of rounds sharing where we all are with sociocracy (what we're doing already in our co-ops, what we're hoping to do etc), and then to explore ideas for an online practitioners forum of some sort.

Depending on time and numbers we may use a sociocratic approach for proposal shaping in groups, or we may decide to set up a meeting shortly afterwards specifically to do that.

Meeting 3 Doodle Poll - please fill in by Friday 26th.

Thanks,
Abbie

@graham2 @katewhittle @johnn Following on from your posts about group ownership, bumps with the process, and timescales etc, I thought I'd share in a bit more detail how we're learning to do this at Unicorn. As I started to say during our session on Friday, we take quite a difference approach to consent decision-making, as taught to us by Sociocracy For All. There are definitely some big similarities in process, but some key differences too. For us it's about being action focused, moving things along as quickly as possible so we can learn by trying things out, i.e. the "good enough for now, safe enough to try" continuous learning approach. A brief outline of the method we're using/learning:
1) Clarification questions - is there anything you need to ask to understand the proposal as written?
2) Quick reactions - what comes up for you about the proposal?
3) Consent - answered in the positive i.e. 'consent' 'yes' 'happy' 'ok' .. OR 'I have an objection'
4) Hear objections in turn - they must be reasoned objections related to the aim of the circle (I think perhaps for us the 'felt sense' approach is more our current consensus model). For objections we ask - if the proposal is passed, how could it impede us working together to meet our agreed aim(s)? Everything is based on the shared, mutually agreed (mutually consented to) aim or aims.

In this way objections are owned by the whole group once aired. It shouldn't be a negative thing to object, it should be embraced as a positive - a way to further improve the proposal and to ensure we reach 'good enough and safe enough' as smoothly and quickly as we can. There are three key steps to resolution of objections:
1) Look for small, easy amendments within the spirit of the proposal, quickly retest for consent
2) Shorten the term - if 6 months isn't safe enough to try, would trying it for 3 months feel safer?
3) Measure the concern (often in conjunction with two) - what do you think could go wrong if we implement the proposal? Let's figure out a way to measure if that happens and a review date to see if it has happened or not.

I love (at the moment anyway, it's all still new and shiny for us!) the spirit of moving things forward and trying something out to find out if it works or not, rather than discussing at length what may or may not happen if we agree to x.

I certainly appreciate, as @graham2 asks, that for more complex proposals stemming from considerable individual work, the outline I've sketched above may take loner to work through, and may have more personal feelings embedded for the person bringing the proposal. However, if the proposal is of this nature, I'd expect / hope it would stem from some collective work using the sociocratic proposal shaping methods, even if then taken away and progressed by one or two people.

Hope that all makes sense!

Thanks Abbie!

Is there a recording of the last session? Sorry I couldn't make it

@abbiekempson @graham2 @johnn

Hi Abbie - I see the similarities - in the process for example - but I am not so sure about the differences.

Certainly for me, my experience of this (and it goes way back beyond ever discovering Sociocracy to agile forms for working in companies I was involved in the 80s and 90s) is the idea of being action-focussed - iterating fast, and learning from error. (The theory for this is probably Stacey's complex responsive process which asks us to 'take complexity serious' - we cannot accurately predict the future or control it - therefore the sensible thing to do is iterate and experiment!)

And I also believe deeply in a good enough approach. I tried to make this point - that @kayleigh or any proposer has put forward a proposal because they have energy for it. What we don't want is a dampening of that energy - which typically arises when arguments start - just watch the two sides of the house of commons baying at each other and purging their useful energy that way, and in fruitless outrage, rather than getting on and trying stuff!

We seem to agree on clarification and quick reactions. In terms of asking for consent, I think I am asking the same question but in a slightly different way. What I am trying to do is to take into account people's ability to learn to express their felt-sense. Personally I have often in board meetings had that experience of knowing I didn't want to support something but being unable to say why (maybe this is the result of my own peculiar way of processing reality!). One of the things I like about the proposal becoming a shared proposal @graham2 is that often other people are able to express concerns in the dialogue which surrounds it - concerns that I or others may have had but may not be able to put into words.

In terms of the three key steps to resolution you propose @abbiekempson these are exactly the same ones I would usually suggest as a facilitator. That was a 'bumpy' bit in the demo and it didn't really seem like we had time, or something. But @marksimmonds made an example of 1) I think. And 2) - turning the project into a 'pilot' very often seems to me to be a quick way of gaining consent on even a very complicated proposal. I also agree 3) 'measuring' (or I would say seeking feedback) is a great way to reduce anxiety - which of course is always there when something new is introduced.

Again compare and contrast with some of the large 'decisions' that are forced through while still badly thought out - OK you can't 'pilot' everything - But i think you can nearly always find some practical next steps that will move the initiative forward (often these having the side benefit of involving those who are unsure in the learning and experimentation - which can also go a long way to resolving concerns in practice).

I also completely agree that the aim is to get everyone behind the proposal. So while @kayleigh had brought it forward - I would say as voice for the broader group - implementing it is going to be a responsibility of the group and therefore everyone's real buy-in (not some false facipulated (facilitated/manipulated) version) is necessary.

Again my love of consent in this regard comes from practice. I have been in too many meetings where the HIPPO's (highest paid person's) opinion drives 'agreement' only to push disagreement underground, where it inevitably surfaces later as sabotage in serious or minor forms (like simply not supporting the implementation).

Sometimes people offer 'can you live with the proposal?' as a way of helping determine what is meant by consent but on reflection I would suggest this is probably too weak - a better question to ask yourself might be 'can you actively support this proposal?' - in the sense of definitely not get in the way and preferably enable it (by removing blocks) and best of all actively assist it into implementation.

Hope that helps
Pete

Not all projects can be broken down into small iterative steps. Relocation, chenging the computer system, buying big capital goods, even employing an extra worker (in small coops) are all or nothing steps.
Im interested how such decisions can be done in a gradualist, iterative, organic way.
Of course old style hierachical culture practised all or nothing. Force through a big decision and recruit allies while disabling opposition. So old style project management techniques were fitted to this culture eg PRINCE, and are more about enforcing control than doing the job itself. IMO

Hi @bobcan

@abbiekempson listed three ways to work with proposals. There are more - because this is fundamentally a creative process involving a group of people.

"1) Look for small, easy amendments within the spirit of the proposal, quickly retest for consent
2) Shorten the term - if 6 months isn't safe enough to try, would trying it for 3 months feel safer?
3) Measure the concern (often in conjunction with two) - what do you think could go wrong if we implement the proposal? Let's figure out a way to measure if that happens and a review date to see if it has happened or not"

Personally, I think all the things you mention can be approached iteratively, from the point of view of making a group decision. Even something that appears unitary - like hiring someone is actually a series of steps - assess the available budget, define the role, write the job description, sound out recruitment agencies etc. So from the point of view of getting a decision that everyone can agree to, the group might not want to sign up to hiring. But they might agree to some of those steps.

We can also vary what we mean by hire someone. For example, how long is the probation period, is this a permanent or temporary contract.

So we as a group might agree to write and publish a job description but measure how many replies we get before deciding whether or not to proceed.

Relocation is a really difficult one - that would require real creativity to come up with some intermediate steps. Anyone? :)

I think that a relocation (or other critical decision) would
require a deal of research to inform that decision. That research
could be the basis of an iterative approach using - agreeing scope
of research (membership of sub-group perhaps), reviewing initial
findings, agreeing further research (repeat as required), drawing
up series of options, testing with whole group.

Hi everyone, sorry for going quiet - rushed off my feet at the moment. Thanks for filling in the doodle poll. Unfortunately there's no date that works for everyone, but lots of us seem to be free for Weds 7th November so I'd like to suggest we go for that, starting at 1.30pm rather than 2pm (so we finish in time for those that need to leave at 3pm).

Hope that's ok.

Thanks so much for organising us Abbie. I should be able to make it, might be a bit late if the GP's running late! I've booked a call with SoFA on 12th November, to see if I can enlist for the Sociocracy Leadership Training starting next January, & I'm attending the webinar this Friday at 2pm. So all systems go! Frankly I just want to get on and practice it, so I can use it myself in the co-ops I belong to and have it as an additional string to my bow when working on decision-making and co-op structure with clients.

ive got 4pm our time for the sociocracy seminar this friday. could you check and tell me if im wrong. made my head hurt working it out.

Hi @katewhittle - that's great, i'm sure you'll enjoy SoLT, it's a great learning experience :)

Oh whoops, sorry, no idea why I put 2pm above! In my diary I've got 4pm. I'll check it.

Kate, do you want to be on the worker coop HR people mailing list? Im putting one together to try to create a network, especially now that Notts Business School are actively working on worker coop HR. Kiri Langmead and Prof. Daniel King are lead academics.Bob

Yes please! I also passed on this info to Mike at Delta-T

I got an email from SoFA this afternoon at 4pm saying it was 24 hours till the webinar, so I'm guessing 4pm our time is right. They also said they'd send a reminder one hour beforehand, so we should be ok. :slight_smile:

Just a reminder it's the meeting tomorrow at 1.30pm - 3pm.

Zoom link: https://zoom.us/j/252653307

So sorry I missed the meeting! Congruence of GP appointment & checking up on my 8 months' pregnant daughter! (She's fine, thanks). But I'm a bit hyper :laughing:

I'm really sorry I missed it - my dog Molly is unwell and after an upsetting vet appointment this morning and sorting out a referral to a specialist I'm afraid I completely lost track of time. I hope it went well and I look forward to hearing what's come out of it. Apologies again.

sorry to hear that Abbie. we had a useful hour, mainly raising difficulties on the ground.

Yes, sorry also @abbiekempson, hope it works out.

Hi All

Abbie - so sorry to hear about Molly. It sounds like you have had a really tough day and totally understandable that sociocracy was the last thing on your mind.

Kate - Hyper is good and glad to hear all is well.

Thanks for a really interesting discussion today. I have ‘summarised’ some key points below. Feel free to add if I have missed anything/correct anything that I have misunderstood. It would be great to hear thoughts from those who weren’t able to make the meeting.

Things people want to get from the group
At the end of the last session we identified a two possibilities in terms of the purpose of the group:
1. Practical training
2. Developing a learning group to share experiences, challenges etc.

Key points/requests from today’s session include:
- Having the session has been great. Now keen to apply what has been learnt – I think this is great and shows the potential of using zoom study groups to get cooperatives started with sociocracy. This might be worth bearing in mind if the group would like to get involved in introducing sociocracy to other cooperatives.

• There was a call for practical examples. This was seen as crucial to getting cooperatives and co-operators on board with sociocracy (or any new technique/approach).

• How do you introduce sociocracy to groups that have no time/will to experiment? – We had a discussion about the challenge of introducing new ideas to cooperatives that are already creaking at the seams. When everyone is pushed to their limits, even if something sounds like it might help in theory, trying it can be emotionally too much or might feel like too big a risk. I think this links to two issues: (1) If we want to be involved in promoting sociocracy (all be it, not as a silver bullet) how do we reach out to those cooperatives who are not already engaged in the cooperative network. These are often the cooperatives who are struggling or are rushed off their feet. (2) How do you break sociocracy down into ‘bite-sized’ chunks that can be easily introduced, implemented and maintained? We agreed that introducing check-in rounds might be a good place to start, but also discussed the risk that this can alienate people who are less comfortable sharing their feelings.

• As either a consultant or a cooperative member trying to introduce sociocracy, how do you develop and maintain trust? What do you need to do to be an effective leader of change? How do you get people on board and maintain their support? This was linked to the need to manage people’s anxiety. Any change can bring about anxiety and if this is not managed appropriately it can lead to resistance or rejection. We also discussed the need to manage our own anxiety.

• How do you deal with resistance? We agreed that the key here is getting people to talk about it and identify what is behind it. This isn’t always easy!

• How do you deal with uncooperative people? We talked about the role of empathy and focusing on the positives (i.e. what that person contributes to the group). These approaches can be great but how do we do them (and deal with the emotional labour involved) and what do we do if a member is just not interested, won’t engage or is sabotaging process or ideas that other members are supportive of?

In addition to what we want to focus on we also highlighted some events that might give us an opportunity to explore the issues identified:
Losing Control: Pete told us about ‘losing control’ that is being held in Birmingham on 5-6th February (http://www.losingcontrol.org/). They are open to ideas for sessions including ‘talk to me’ (sharing examples), ‘help me’ (focusing on problem solving) and ‘teach me’ (training focused) events. This is a potential platform for meeting/developing ideas/gathering momentum. Any thought? I am considering proposing an event on HR without hierarchy.

Sociocracy learning and training with Ted and Jerry: Ted and Jerry are coming to Nottingham and will be running and event from 1-3 March 2019. The Friday and Saturday will be dedicated to trouble shooting and problem solving for cooperatives who have started to use sociocracy. We hope to host about 6 cooperatives (about 3 members from each). Daniel or Martyn will speak to the cooperatives involved before the event to get a clear idea of the issues they are facing. Involvement in this part of the event will be by invitation. If you/anyone you know would be interested in taking part please let us know.

The Sunday (3rd March) will be open to wider cooperatives interested in learning more about sociocracy and will be focused on training. Again, if you know of anyone who may like to attend please let us know.

Festival of Debate event: I am in the process of organising a follow-up event to ‘Ted and Jerry come to Nottingham’ as part of Sheffield’s annual Festival of Debate. Details of this are a bit up in the air at the moment but I will keep you posted. If my various applications etc. come off the plan is to run a workshop introducing people to sociocracy and exploring some of the challenges people have faced. It would be great to get those who were involved in the March event to share their experiences so we get a kind of snowballing effect.

Actions:
- Given the points discusses I think it would be great to include a session on ‘change making’ in the March ‘Ted and Jerry come to Nottingham’ event. This could cover introducing sociocracy, developing and maintaining trust, managing anxiety and dealing with resistance.
- It would be great if anyone interested could share expressions of interest/ideas for Losing Control
- If anyone has recommendations of cooperatives who might want to be involved in the events above could you please either email me (kiri.langmead@ntu.ac.uk) or post on the loomio group?
- Add any thoughts, reflections, objections etc. to the loomio group – lets keep the discussion going!

Great summary @kirilangmead3 I think your suggestion of a 'change-making' session is a great idea.

It might be an opportunity to introduce some new ideas about 'change'. I think the default way of thinking about change is often 1) define the change 2) implement it 3) watch the results accrue. In my experience, change is nothing like this.

I think many 'change projects' fail because this underlying assumption about how change works is not challenged.

re Change, absolutely Pete. Change almost never happens by predestination. Tasks may, even big ones. Change accrues by everyone or at least a majority of participants talking about, thinking about and acting differently by some sort of agreement. It is a social process and coops should be good at it. Are they?Ralph Stacey is very good on change. He writes about strategic change (taking a different path in the unpredictable far future) and why almost all strategic change methodologies are fantasies based on delusions.

Tactical change is for example business planning into a predictable future, a year or two hence. It is essentially cybernetic, systematic control towards a desired performance target.

Operational change is day to day process management using whatever passes for management authority. It operates in the near and highly predictable future.

It is easier to gain collective agreement and therefore management authority for operational and tactical change. eg changes to a work rota or a cash flow, than for strategic change where everyone has a valid opinion and a clash of opinion. Sociocracy clearly has a potentially crucial role in solving the strategic change puzzle in worker coops (why are we generally so bad at it? Why do we so often settle for MOTS - just more of the same- rather than real change for the better?)

Hi Bob. I I really like that way of separating those three types of change strategic, tactical and operational.

I am also a Stacey fan. And think he would agree that anxiety also needs a rethink.

The common idea is that anxiety arises - often the word resistance is used - when a change is introduced. I think, and I think Ralph would agree, that anxiety is always in and around us. It is part of the human condition and exists in all the groups we are part of.

It is certainly my own experience and my experience of every group I have ever been in. Sometimes it is visible but more often invisible (and unacknowledged).

Either way I think it is what drives the conversational patterns we create. And it is those patterns - for example, failing to listen properly, advocating our own ideas (as I am doing here!) - that mean that we maintain the status quo and end up settling for 'more of the same'.

So, yes, I also think Sociocracy has a role in helping us find better agreement around strategic change - because it is a different conversational pattern - one which encourages listening (when done well!).

Of course introducing it also raises anxiety as we acknowledged the other day. So the ability of those introducing it to hold and if necessary name that anxiety is also very important.

By the way @kirilangmead3 here's a nice little video by Gervase Bushe - he's a good talker I think - introducing Dialogic OD, which I mentioned on the call.

https://youtu.be/myyj15AfH3Q

One of the things I like about Gervase is that he is trying to operationalise this approach (through what he calls Clear Language (not to be confused with Clean Language, although both are useful!).

good video. makes some important points not the least of which is the need for healthy communication inside groups and holding back from resolution in decisionmaking to allow participants to develop themselves and their relationships with the others. Which is a key 'rule' in consensus of course and many other techniques 'stop the race to solutions, people are just trying to avoid the cognitive dissonance (my brain hurts!) of uncertainty.
Its systems theory based, so lots of assumptions about how people behave which will also therefore be hierarchical - even while denying it.
Love the reference to Ralph Stacey as an extremist - bring it on!!

Hi everyone, just flagging this up in case anyone in the Manchester area is interested in coming along.

REGISTER NOW:
Introduction to Sociocracy in Manchester with Unicorn's Abbie Kempson | 27 Nov 5:30 pm @ Holyoake House | M60 0AS

Would love to be there Abbie, but just not possible. Enjoy & hope it goes well, I'm sure it will! :slight_smile:

I am puzzled why no one has suggested at the outset of this discussion on Sociocracy "shall we compare this new structure to what we know already?" For a worker coop, surely the VSM would have been gathering dust on top of some ones cupboard and as with any comparison eg cart horse to that shiny new tractor lets look at the merits of the new to the old. Its as if no one is aware of the VSM or perhaps would rather pretend it does not exist. I dont know which is true being new to the group, please advise?

My guess is that few people are aware of the VSM, and fewer still have actually applied it for real in their cooperatives. As to making a comparison between the VSM and sociocracy, my take on that is that it would be comparing apples with pears. Sociocracy, in my uneducated view, is a methodology for how to do deliberation and decision-making, where the VSM is a diagnostic tool for designing and analysing management systems and information flows, in support of effective decision-making. I'd say that the two things are compatible and have the potential to be mutually beneficial. However, as I say, I am an uneducated heathen and have studied neither discipline in depth, so very happy to be corrected. :-)

Just to say that Bill and some others at Cetis are familiar with Beer's VSM, though I don't know how much they have applied it in practice

Phil, VSM? Googled it and I’m sure you don’t mean Vibrating Sample Magnetometer in this context 😉

Viable System Model. Piloted by Jon Walker at Suma in the 1980s - see https://www.esrad.org.uk/resources/vsmg_3/screen.php?page=preface (see case studies). @bobcan could tell you more I'm sure.

This thread getting awfu’ long and taking time to load, start a new one? I’ve been a lurker here rather than a participant, but some great contributions and reflection, looking forward to diving deeper

I agree with Graham, apples & pears. I looked at VSM years ago and decided it was one for the academics, I couldn't see any co-op members that I knew finding the time to even understand it let alone implement it in their co-operative. I suspect Sumanoids came to the same conclusion. @bobcan ?

On the face of it it does look a bit complicated. But if we consider the increasingly distributed and open nature of doing business, e.g. the whole platform co-op thing, etc., then frameworks like VSM can be hugely valuable in my view. I've been trying to encourage Jon Walker to write a simplified 'VSM for Dummies' type of thing to make the on-ramp a little more approachable, no luck so far. The whole VSM/Stafford Beer approach is widely used in the corporate world - I see no reason why it should not be useful in co-ops, and lots of reasons, given it's basis in biomimicry, why it could be a great fit for co-ops.

I know very little about the VSM (with a pint inside me I can, apparently, talk energetically about Salvador Allende and Tulip Chairs...) but I do see similarities with sociocracy, in terms of feedback loops etc. That said, this thread seems to me to have had its day long ago (and served its purpose well) - I'd definitely be in favour of a new thread focusing on the VSM and co-ops. And hearing from Suma and Cetis if anyone from those co-ops remembers the VSM times?

I'd be happy to talk to you about Salvador Allende any time @johnn !!

Are you aware of Jon's joint publication with AngelaEspinosa "A Complexity Approach to Sustainability: Theory and Application (Second Edition) (Series On Complexity Science)" ?
web link:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Complexity-Approach-Sustainability-Application-Science/dp/1786342030/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1528536978&sr=1-1&keywords=Complexity+Approach+To+Sustainability%2C+A%3A+Theory+And+Application+%28Series+On+Complexity+Science%29+second+edition

Well hopefully I'll manage to gatecrash the next CoTech gathering and I can take you up on that!

Viable Systems Model is a cybernetic process control methodology invented by Stafford Beer. It uses a biological analogy of organisations to describe various subsystems and how they are integrated with each other and the whole organism.

VSM was used by the Allende government in Chile but all evidence was destroyed by Pinochet. British coop people eg Jon Walker got interested and Jon even trialled an attempt to use it in Suma (1986-90ish). It didnt work.

People are not parts of systems and their relations with each other vary unpredictably (ie are complex). The biological analogy is false. your heart doesnt decide at random to become your brain but people do suddenly change behaviour and become different people effectively.

In hierarchies this variability is suppressed so people look like simple but complicated sub-systems to an external observer eg the HR dept. (even thought they are behaving in a complex (uncontrollable) manner at their local level).

Jon was the General manager at Out of This World consumer coop of the late 90s early 00s, where I presume he also used VSM. OTT failed due to systematic errors in management. So again not a good example of VSM.

It also shares the problem of most cybernetic models (cybernetics is management by regression to a desired target from an uncontrolled variance eg central heating controllers) that it isnt sufficiently varied to cope with human behaviour (as above).

In systems theory is a rule of requisite variety, the controller has to have at least as many variable states as the controlled eg central heating controllers have more states than the heating system. Human minds are probably the most complex things in the universe and an aggregation of communicating human minds, an organisation, vastly outdoes any control technology in terms of requisite variety.

Imposing VSM (and it has to be imposed one way or another. It is not intuitive.) is just another example of the system taking precedence over the relations between the people. It exists above the people. (Though in reality it doesnt actually exist beyond a fantasy in a manager's mind because all that really exists in an organisation is the web of communications between the participants - the complex responsive processes of relating- of which VSM becomes merely one strand in the ever changing web of complexity of the organisational conversation. No wonder manager plans and models 'sink without trace' unless they are imposed by force.)

Jon is still promoting VSM with his partner Angela Spinoza. Its used in Colombia and I heard Mondragon were playing with it. Be interesting how it resurfaces after they have modded it.

As a simple process control technique linking production departments together its ok but dont think its a whole organisation, bells and whistles strategic management methodology. It cant be, remember cybernetics is regression to a pre determined target. It cant deal with novelty or innovation at all. It is a normalising technique. But what we all want and seek is novelty and innovation in business to be able to better satisfy worker and consumer needs and wants.

So what we want are management techniques that encourage effective and efficient communication between these wonderfully complex entities, human minds, to be able to agree what to do together and how to resolve disagreements.

Because we arent extracting value for absent owners, we dont need management techniques that are really designed to control people as labour units, even though they are dressed up in TEAL colours. We can use the complexity of humanness in all its awesome messiness and power. That's why some coops 'work' unbelievably well. Annual Return on Capital Employed of 100+% like Suma. (Good normal businesses manage 25%) Imagine if we could do that in other coops. The source of that power is allowing complexity to do its stuff.

Or as Jon said the last time I saw him "That's all very well Bob, but when is this going to happen? And we have some evidence this complexity interpretation works and isnt just talk."

I've been chatting to Jon recently - he's very interested in
sociocracy.

I've got 50 page detailed case study of the failure of Out of
this World written by Jon. Whilst the failure was indeed down to
poor decisions around risk and finance, there is no mention of or
indication of the use of VSM.

indeed and it would be odd not to have used it at OTT given his before and after enthusiasm. an omission? Indeed it says everyone else was to blame for the failure of OTT except the general manager.

Jon in his published works makes big claims for VSM in Suma (to the irritation of the old timers who remember the era) and says its eventual failure was due to Suma not doing it right. In my book that is a failure in the method. people couldnt understand it, didnt engage with it, didnt encourage others to engage etc. There are lots of 'if only everyone would agree this idea of mine would be a perfect solution' . Like world peace if only everyone would stop fighting.

if you need to get people in line to follow a method you are suppressing their humanness. ok for sports direct or amazon but self harming for a worker coop and suppressing the synergy of their collected intelligence, i think.

Dear Bob,
Thank you for your considered reply and I can see that you have a good understanding and experience from practical use of the VSM. I have started a new thread and I hope that any further comments will be under that thread. I am reminded of a passage by Jonathan Haidt:
"If you really want to change someone’s mind on a moral or political matter, you’ll need to see things from that persons angle as well as your own. If you truly see it the other person’s way - deeply and intuitively - you might even find your own mind opening in response….empathy is an antidote to righteousness, although its very difficult to empathise across a moral divide."
So my plan is to offer a web site open for comment and content revision where the people taking part, attempt to remodel the VSM to embrace Sociocracy. I think that should satisfy 2nd order Cybernetics and Jonathan Haidt. I took on the BSI9001:2015 QMS diploma with an open mind, (or thats what I thought at the time, ) to help me move on from the VSM, to more conventional management practices. We needed as a business to win more tenders and as a contract manager I wanted best performance and total customer satisfaction. I used the VSM as a baseline, starting the course and expected that AhAh moment to come along as I progressed. The work was marked by a BSI ISO9001 trainer. I was surprised that at no point along that path did the VSM fail. I have put on line all of that marked work on a rough web site https://usqc.org Its just a space on the web at this time to store working files. I hope people with look on the posts and help me discover where any logical inference I have made is weak so that a generic new site can be built which embraces the best of Sociocracy and the VSM if that is at all possible. Please note I am not on some ego trip or aspire to great heights. I am just a grandad concerned about CC for his kids. I will be ash and long gone but I suggest they will not and I hope to leave something behind to say "I tried". I am dismayed by the rise of protest movements such as "extinction rebellion" which I feel is a sad reflection on the Transition towns movement. People are loosing all hope. Please help me Bob to give them that hope by turning over every stone we can, to find answers whilst we still can.

Dear All, Happy New Year, and here are my responses to Bob. I think you’ll find (as Ben Goldacre says) that it’s a bit more complicated than that.

I have asked Angela to comment separately on Bob’s theoretical understanding of the VSM. Bob has involved her in the debate, and she’s one of a small number of people who peer-reviews systems and cybernetics for top academic journals, has lectured and published widely for decades and is considered to be an expert on these matters. This will come later in a separate Loomio contribution.

But first : Suma 1986. Bob says “ “It didn’t work”

The VSM work at Suma was over 30 years ago, and memories can be notoriously unreliable. Happily there is an account I wrote up at the time, and which was put online by John Waters.
https://www.esrad.org.uk/resources/vsmg_3/screen.php?page=2_2cs2
I wrote this while still at Suma. As it was published as part of an ICOM training manual, it was checked by several people at Suma and judged to be a reliable record of what happened. The Proposals are taken exactly from the Autonomy Group’s wording to the membership - (there were 4 of us) . I was there for about 7 years after the changes, and during that time no-one questioned the accuracy of the account.

To summarise, the following was proposed and put into place :
1. Suma changed from trying to work as a single large group to a cluster of autonomous work groups, each responsible for a part of Suma’s operation. This worked !
2. Each work-group was given as much autonomy as possible. This worked !
3. Budgets were allocated to each work group, so they could make day-to-day financial decisions without General Meeting approval. This worked !
4. Co-ordination of work-groups was initially attempted by a series of meetings called the Hub/Sector which mainly focused on policy issues rather than co-ordination as proposed, and was eventually dropped. (This didn't work ) Co-ordination was then undertaken by a new post, the Operations Coordinator. I was doing the personnel job at the time and wrote the job description, which was pure VSM : creating synergies between autonomous , self-organising departments. This worked !
5. Suma started to develop daily performance measurements, which we called indicies, better known now as KPIs. These were to provide accountability, but more importantly the daily feed-back so everyone could assess their performance and respond accordingly. This worked !
6. A “Future Strategy Post” was proposed but was never properly implemented. This didn’t work !
7. Quarterly General Meetings were proposed, but initially not seen as necessary as the Hub/Sector system dealt predominately with policy issues. Once this was dropped (see above) QGM’s began to be called to deal with Policy issues. This worked eventually !

Generally, a new, more effective way of working was introduced. Suma did a survey a year after it was introduced which generally gave the thumbs up. We didn’t get lots of things right the first time - especially the Hub/Sector system - but the VSM provided the guidance to evolve our way through the process. It wasn’t perfect by any means, but a blanket : “It didn’t work” seems a little hard to justify. The central concept of autonomous work groups, real-time information providing daily feed-back, a meta-system to coordinate the autonomous operational bits, and policy systems which involve all members was put in place and worked while I was there. Suma’s reluctance to establish the proposed “future strategy” function maybe explains Bob’s conclusion that the VSM cannot deal with innovation and novelty. (???)
All my “claims” are as above and as detailed in the “authorized” account, which Suma members were happy with at the time.
I can only assume that Bob’s assessment is limited to the Hub/Sector system which didn’t work in its intended role of co-ordinating autonomous departments, and was eventually superseded by the Operations Coordinator.

But have a look at the “authorized” version if you want the whole story. (Please note : the Operations Coordinator function was put in place after this account was written in 1991.)

Second : The VSM cannot deal with novelty/innovation/strategic management.

Maybe the best way to resolve this is to introduce Bob to a few of the many people who make their living doing exactly what Bob says is impossible. Look, for example, at Fractal Consulting

http://www.fractal-consulting.com

Patrick Hoverstadt has been using the VSM for 20 years, and has catalogued dozens of successful case studies. (Check them out !)

Bill Christopher hired Stafford to consult on the 4 billion dollar company in the USA where he was working, and found the VSM so effective he set up his own VSM consultancy. His findings are described in his book Holistic Management. He states that every time he applied the VSM it always worked well. Much of this involves innovation and strategic management in very large complex companies.

Malik in Management built up one of the largest consulting groups in central Europe based on the VSM. They have done hundreds of applications. They are so impressed with Stafford’s work they have set up The Cwarel Issaf Institute to promote his ideas.

It’s odd to get Bob’s very negative assessment of the VSM at a time when interest is booming.
This year Raul Espejo ran a workshop for the Labour conference fringe meetings in Liverpool on the Chilean work - it was so popular there was standing room only. There are over 1,000 people on the VSM Linked-in group. We’re currently working on combining VSM with the Sustainable Flourishing Business Canvass of Antony Upward. Mark Lambertz second VSM book (in German) sold out this year in the first few days. Angela (actual name Espinosa) and my book is now on its second edition. Andy Goldring has used it in the British Permaculture association.(very similar approach : learn from nature, use systems thinking to build a model, apply to the way we live and work. ) Gary Alexander has used it in his E-gaia proposals for a sustainable earth based on communication. This year it’s turned up in the design of new cooperative economies involving crypto-currencies and platform coops. I could go on . . . . Most of these examples have been published. We can provide references if anyone is interested.
All of this is on public record. Practitioners consider the VSM to have enormous diagnostic power, “blisteringly fast” (says Patrick Hoverstadt) and (see above) it has been used successfully for decades in dealing with problems in large organisations.

All of this looks a bit different from the picture Bob paints.

Many of us who've studied it in depth consider the VSM an extra-ordinarily powerful theory which is of enormous relevance to the cooperative sector.
What bothers me most is that comments like Bob’s, if widely accepted, will deprive the cooperative world of an important tool.
At it's heart the VSM is based on on individual creativity and collaboration, and designs everything in the context of its links with the environment.

So, what to do ?

I have two suggestions :

First : I would like to invite Bob to a Scio (Systems and Cybernetics in Organisations) meeting in Manchester. Patrick Hoverstadt and many others would be happy to discuss these issues.

Second. Angela has suggested we organise a half day seminar in Hull at the Centre of Systems Sciences, again to look at the relevance of the VSM and Sociocracy. Usually Mike Jackson (who’s written most of the books on systems sciences in management) comes along, as well as some of the UK’s experts in systems sciences. Everyone is welcome.

Maybe we can all enrich our understanding of these issues, and hopefully help the coop sector to grow and prosper.

And, finally, if you want a really up-beat assessment of Stafford and the VSM, check out Open Democracy, always a reliable source of information.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/node/611
Stafford Beer: the man who could have run the world

More on the VSM and Sociocracy to follow.

Happy to take part Jon.
I took on the personnel role in Suma in 1994 immediately after Jon (was still using your in tray when I retired in 2015!). Some of these changes still existed but much had disappeared. My memory of the times Jon talks about are not good. I do remember that Suma members acknowledged the common sense in better organised work units using metrics to self-manage better (Suma has always been self management in principle if not in practice) and better coordination between those units and an overall operational coordination function, the Operations Coordinator, which I think together correspond to S1, S2 and S3. But members rejected S4 and S5 external scanning and future changes as putting too much power in the hands of a minority. So VSM was acceptable and maybe actually worked (I cant remember now) in the operational and tactical levels of management. many schools of management work at these levels, it doesnt have to be VSM. Other cybernetic methods such as Management by Objectives for example are intuitively acceptable to people.
By 1998 the Investors in People assessor said Suma was working well at the individual level and whole coop level but had virtually no internal coordination at the team level. VSM had not lasted. It was an impossible to coordinate mess.
For me a coordination methodology must be self-reproducing or it has to be imposed and maintained by status authority or charisma authority. In the lack of authority VSM had faded away.
Ive read your piece and Ive looked up the consultancies and essays and I still find that VSM is an idealised systems theory which is apart from the people in the organisation and to which they must be subordinate for it to work. Because it requires an authority hierarchy it is therefore a dangerous methodology to use in democratic cooperatives. More dangerous because it seems to be merely technocratic but real world research shows that the most common cause of demutualisation in worker coops is a takeover by their technocrats.
Its also incomprehensible for me, a postgraduate level reader, so inaccessible to most. https://archive.org/details/World_in_torment-Stafford_Beer/page/n7 I got a few pages into this and realised I understood little except in the most abstract way. Its intellectually pleasurable, like trying to tease out meaning from dense philosophy, but as a guide for normal people to organise organisations? Sorry.

But Im happy to be shown to be wrong. There's nothing more exciting in life than discovering a new way of looking at the world and new insights.

Hi Bob. As promised, I m responding below to your comments on the VSM. Hope to engage in a fruitful and productive conversation.

Thanks Angela, apologies for getting your name mixed up with the philosopher. I checked too.
I'll write a reasonable response. There's quite a bit where I suspect we are on different planets here. As you say talking creates understanding so yes lets. I've been reading a bit more about VSM and TBH so far I havnt had that 'oh, maybe I was completely wrong' moment. I'm used to that feeling

Umm I don’t know who receives this but it’s ok if it’s shared. Thanks Angela and here’s my response. Hope it’s interesting.
Bob

Google Document
AE VSM response BC Jan19
( https://docs.google.com/document/d/12klgLYszTqV2h7yVQrTc1j9kPFZQDeRUuulw9KLtt4I )

Lovely explanation of Stacey's work @bobcan - thanks.

As you know, I completely agree that we need to differentiate Complex Responsive Processes of Relating (or what I tend to shorten to Complex Responsive Process or sometimes Complex Social Process) from Complex Adaptive Systems, or, more generally, conventional 'systems thinking'.

It's also very interesting to hear how your experiences in Suma - and specifically being unable to use hierarchy or status authority - led to you thinking about strategic management in a way that chimes with Stacey's more recent thinking, which is not really 'systems thinking' as it is generally understood.

And also to hear about the success of the member recruitment processes that relied upon agreements between membership and personnel workers.

You seem to be describing conversational processes - it's not a matter of sitting outside the 'system' and creating a process or procedure to link one output to another. It's much more about being in that process conversationally and adapting to it as it happens.

It strikes me here that 'process' is a highly contested word - for many it has a meaning that is much closer to procedure - a series of steps. Whereas for me, and I guess for you, we live in - and experience - an ever emerging 'process' - a 'to and fro' of lived experience between human beings.

As you also point out these ideas can be frightening. Losing 'the safety of an abstract depersonalised unemotional, goal oriented systems based method' can be scary. I suspect that at core many of us believe that if we submit to our experience - we may experience discomfiting emotion, especially when we are not used to it. And we may be right.

Of course, there's also a risk here that trying to find a new way of explaining takes us down the very same route of abstraction. By making things abstract and talking about complex social process versus complex adaptive systems we find ourselves in a new 'porridge'!

The alternative is to open ourselves to and enquire into our experience - what is sometimes called 'exploring' instead of 'explaining' (eg by Agazarian). Explaining is of course by far the dominant paradigm in our (Western?) world.

And it is also, I think, really important to remember that we are always in this process of gesture and response as we communicate with other people. In fact, we are in it right now!

That's why I was so pleased to read your last sentence - that you're keen to continue the conversation. Of course, we cannot *not *continue the conversation - from a complex social process point of view! Even stopping is a gesture, which will generate a response!

By the way, I wanted to correct one small point - my understanding of Sociocracy is that it has been around much longer than Holacracy - so it didn't originate in Holacracy.

I also share your concerns that Sociocracy may contain hidden cultural assumptions. Or if we use Stacey's framing, it must. Because Sociocracy, as well as being a conversational framework is also an abstract method that can become reified in use! The framework cannot exist without the people using it!

I think the only way we can mitigate this is by staying very mindful as we use Sociocracy or any other approach. To gain benefit from this approach or any other, including VSM, we need to try to stay aware as we talk about them and use them, so that we avoid these traps of abstraction and reification.

That's why for me Dialogic OD is a helpful way to think - because it reminds us that it is our own mindsets that determine how we communicate.

Obviously (!) other people's mindsets contribute too. And it is tempting to imagine they have it wrong, while we have it right!

But while we seem to be able to sense other people's emotional states, I think reading other people's minds is not possible. So I don't believe we can know what another person's mindset is.

In that way I would humbly suggest that we can't know how @jonwalker or @angelaespinosa (or anyone else!) really think, or what assumptions they bring to the (complex social) process of applying VSM!

Which is why it is always so important to continue the conversation!

Best

I just want to say thank you Bob for giving your considered reply to the questions raised by the VSM. My apologies for not reading this sooner. I understand the "turning brains to porridge" feeling some people have expressed and I do not wish my searching for answers to be over bearing to this discussion group. The "Heart of Enterprise" was a recommended read by Allenna Leonard, Stafford's partner for 20 years. I am so grateful to Allenna for pointing me to this book as it provides so many precious insights relevant to this discussion we are having. rather than be over bearing I will as you have write a separate document, titled " Later in the Bar"

Bob
Thanks for your very sound and interesting response. I apologise for the long time in responding. We re in the middle of moving home and have been quite absent from emails recently. I have very little to disagree with your arguments. We clearly come from different traditions; I have tried reading Stacey's work but I didn't find it particularly engaging; very nice theories, but I didn't feel they were very useful in practice, quite abstract for me. When I asked him after one of his invited talks in the Centre of Systems Studies how he would apply his theory to a business, he responded he '' never try to 'apply' them; he d rather use them as inspiration for new approaches to leadership... that was when I got off his work.. But I do think that there is always things to learn from other perspectives, and I m happy to learn from you on how inspiring you have found his work. I m always happy to learn more and challenge my own assumptions. I will respond more in detail to you, but it ll be when we re back to UK in about 2 weeksBest wishes
Angela

yes he was ridiculously circumspect in practice and so is his successor chris mowles. i think he disappeared up his own hyper reflexivity.

but i can see many ways to use his work and have written short pieces on this. and tested it in coops and seen improvements. its easily applied in coops. i havnt tried in non coops.

isnt it funny how vsm (as far as i currently understand it) and cybernetics in general seem abstract from lived experience to me and staceys stuff is to you.

best wishes

bob

Hi @angelaespinosa. Many thanks for such a full and carefully argued response.

I am really struck by the tone of the reponses so far from the 'VSM community' - very calm, measured, and providing lots of data and information.

Thanks for that, I think it can only help, when there are such different view points here. I think it would be very easy for irritation to arise on both sides, and I am not sure that would help us increase our understanding. Which I think would be sad because I sure we all share similar aims at heart.

I did have one immediate thought about something you wrote. And I wonder if it might be at the heart of the debate, and therefore perhaps is worth clarifying?

You mention 'complex adaptive systems', and also 'complex responsive process'.

My own take on these approaches is that they are almost completely opposite to each other. (Or perhaps in some way complementary, but definitely quite different.)

I got the sense that they might be the same or similar for you? I wondered if you would mind clarifying your understanding of both approaches?

My view is that it is usually our assumptions that make life difficult! So if we are assuming different things about the words we use I think it might be worth us exploring that potential confusion.

Best

My, this thread takes a long time to scroll on ios ...

thanks Philip. my concern is that worker coops invest their preciois time in methods that work for them as worker coops ive seen too many spend their time and morale on highly recommended initiatives that dont.

socuocracy is one that seems to work even if it doesn't. in that people learn to communicate better which is always a good thing.
the Stacey ideas are similar. even if they themselves don't result in business improvement they do again improve communication.

VSM can improve communication but theres a lot of investment to get to a working VSM and it can all just fade away. ive seen that. it has to be maintained by champions. so its a risk. Im also not happy with the evidence base for its effectiveness (cost benefit). so for me its interesting but I wouldnt recommend it except in its simplest form as an aid to patterning conversations.