Clarification of CoTech decision-making process

Love do-ocracy except if it mystifies material inputs/outputs in terms of money and labour, or turns into meritocracy.

Points.

(Still, neat word :)

What exactly is do-ocracy? I'm sure we all get the general idea — JFDI — but when you start to look more closely, I'm wondering how you resolve the issues that are not just able to be dealt with in a superficial way? Are there certain conditions under which a "do-ocracy" flourishes effectively, and if so, what are they? What are the counter-indications? Without this kind of level of reflection, I'm finding it hard to take people seriously when they advocate for a do-ocracy.

Hi Simon. A great challenge.

For me, and I don't know if this was what Harry meant, a 'do-ocracy' is a way of organising (note it's a verb, not a noun like 'organisation') where we accept we cannot know or control the future (even though our anxiety desires us to believe we can) and where, therefore, admitting this, we act, see what happens, reflect (on results and context), and act again.

This is an approach codified in management thinking by people like Reg Revans - in (critical) action learning, action research etc. But, for me, it's more than that: it's a philosophy, and a way of being that can be learnt and brought into all aspects of working life.

Obviously, it runs counter to much traditional thinking about organisations which assumes we can plan and control, and more so, that some people have that right more than others (the so-called 'leaders').

Sometimes what we 'do' impacts, or may impact, other people. When we are concerned about this, I think consent-based decision-making (as in Sociocracy) can make what may sound like a rather individualistic process into a much more social one.

Pete

Interesting reply, thanks @peteburden -- a great help in surfacing the assumptions that may be being made here.

In terms of grammar, perhaps you mean "word that implies action"? There's no difference in grammar to me between "do-ocracy" and "democracy". Many nouns imply action.

As it happens, I'm a great fan of Reg Revans, though I haven't been reading him recently. And I don't really think it's fair to Revans to say that his approach could be called "do-ocracy".

I agree with you in dismissing the idea that everything can be planned and controlled, and that only some people have enough knowledge or competence to play any part in that planning and control. The things that can be planned and controlled, can be only while the assumptions hold, that were the basis of the planning (explicitly or, more dangerously, implicitly). On the other hand, if you believe that some particular aspect of things cannot be planned or controlled, then it is really helpful to point out the assumption that doesn't hold.

What about the converse? Who believes that nothing can be planned for or controlled? A planning approach runs counter to much primitive, magical thinking that believes that many things can only be controlled by ceremonies to appease deities. (Having said that, I acknowledge some fascinating similarities between magical thinking and a good understanding of human psychology.)

"what we 'do' impacts, or may impact, other people"

Yes. Almost always. I take that seriously; I'm sure you do, and I guess that everyone reading here does so as well. We can only know how it impacts other people by asking them, or knowing them very well. This, for me, is one of the drivers for a consensus-oriented approach to decision-making.

Can we please get back to trying to understand what people actually mean by "do-ocracy"?

I just came across the "Definitions for voting" section in the "Worker Co-operative Solidarity Fund Operating Manual". This is the sort of thing we'd like to come up with for this Loomio group.

I'm pasting it here too to save people a click:

Definitions for voting

Agree
I support the proposal

Abstain
I don’t wish to express a view for or against, but I’m willing to be counted as part of the necessary majority if that’s what it takes to pass the proposal

Disagree
I think there might be a better alternative, but I’m willing to go with the majority decision

Block
I believe the proposal goes against the Fund’s agreed rules or purposes, or would create unacceptable risk to the Fund.

8.6. In order to pass, the number of members voting to Agree plus the number of members voting to Abstain must be at least 75% of the total votes cast.

8.7. If 5% or more of the votes are to ‘Block’ then the proposal will not succeed. Whether the number of ‘Block’ votes reaches 5% or not, any member casting a ‘Block’ vote should set out their reasons in the associated discussion thread, and participate in any subsequent discussion aimed at resolving the issue. This should be considered a responsibility of membership.

“It’s like pulling the emergency lever on a tube train. You will have to justify it”
(N. Brown)

8.8. For important proposals, such as changes to the Rules, a 30% quorum level of Loomio-registered members will be required, in addition to a 75% majority of agree + abstain votes.

8.9. Common sense should apply to the length of time needed for a proposals to be issues and a deadline for voting. Normally, this would be at least two weeks.

Thanks, @chrisroos Very similar to Loomio's description.

I'd like to work to refine the meaning of "disagree" and "block" in terms of process. As it happens, we're working on something very similar in our Cohousing community right now.

Later addition: actually I see there is lots of useful material on the Loomio site itself. It might help if people read and discussed that, before labouring to reinvent it.

I'm agreeing with you, really, @chrisroos :)

@asimong I think Pete was suggesting that democracy means "government by the masses" while do-ocracy suggests "government through doing" - it suggests how power will be wielded, rather than who will wield it.

e.g. "do-ocracy" is an alternative to "vote-ocracy" rather than "democracy". FWIW I would hope to see a lot more doing than voting.

Thank you Harry @harryrobbins for continuing to explain the assumptions here.

If government is "through doing", what counts as "doing"? What about the less active people that are affected by what someone is doing? Do they not get a say? And aren't you saying that the people who wield power are the doers, rather than those who stand by?

I'm all for a discussion of how power is to be wielded. I agree that one symptom of a healthy state of affairs is that there is a lot more doing than voting. Another, perhaps equally important symptom of health is that people are feeling solidarity, and are happy with -- not feeling threatened by -- the actions taken, whether or not they have been formally agreed. I'd point out that the only way to achieve this last positive result is, at least, to consult people transparently, with a mind open to hearing unexpected reservations. What then follows disagreement should be dialogue, where both sides listen to the other; learn from each other; and work towards consensus. That way, better decisions can be made, and more positive actions taken, without often needing formality or voting.