This is the best video on sociocracy I have seen so far. I love that it is without any corniness. It is clear and straight-forward, not touchy-feely (at least for the first half or so). This is important, because many people who might benefit from this model would be put off by the more feelings-based videos. Even though the feelings part obviously matters a great deal, it is not a great entry-point for many in traditional/orange companies
the animations are good, the symbolism was a little strange, the audio was great and the content was AWESOME as mentioned, the blinking animations are a little off and distracting the "hats" used to describe circle roles were a little confusing the voiceover was quality, no pops or hisses, and the speaker did a great job and of all of the introductory resources on sociocracy that i've seen, this one goes the most in-depth while remaining accessible thank you for posting this!
5 лет назад
Is there maybe an issue with the export? Have you exported in enough frames per second? It seems strange that the animations are so slow and bulky.
If that's what you took away from this video, then it sounds like it's not a good fit for you. If you'd like to hear how practitioners respond to your question of balance between alignment and operations, there are answers.
@@SociocracyForAll no definitely not a good fit. I don't like the feel of it, too much formality and structure, too much diffusing accountability. Impractical and otherworldly, not for us.
@@deanteasdale8261 mature practicioners and proponents of Dynamic Governance will never claim that this system is a good fit for every group. Some people are simply not willing to share the decision-making authority, or they have not surrounded themselves with people that are competent enough to be delegated to, while some others are comfortable being told what to do and how to do it. For the various types mentioned above, Sociocracy is not a good fit. But it has proven to be very practical for people who appreciate clarify of roles and responsibilities in the organization. Your assessment that it seems to be fostering avoidance of accountability is simply due to a lack of understanding of the system.
Looks like a beautiful system. The only problem... people are involved. Would work great with computers or other logic based systems. People are a more unique environment.
I'm familiar with this.... however I was part of something called Workplace 2000. They called the work groups "clusters". It failed. This was an IT company. Alot of people lost their jobs because management thought this would be very efficient. This was not the case. It turns out that every cluster needed more people/technical staff. We went back to a traditional way of working/managing. That was my experience... yours certainly may be different. Good luck.
Thanks for your comment! Sociocracy isn't really something still being tested, it's in use in hundreds of organizations. No idea what Workplace 2000 is but maybe a deeper comparison might be useful.
If the system is applied diligently, it works. Any governance system will fail if it is not thoroughly understood or diligently applied. It is the practicioners' responsibility to learn the rules of the game to successfully play the game. A mature application of Sociocracy includes regular feedback mechanisms that allow the early detection of, and improvements on problems encountered in its practice .
@@Mukunda16108 Oh no I disagree....every situation is different....it was understood fine....the attempt was over 2 yrs....most of the staff that was part of this effort was unhappy due to lack of resources....as mentioned many jobs were eliminated bc this was supposed to take less staff....its presented to management as a money saver....which of course is the bottome line....and I dont care if it works somewhere else...it didnt work in this instance. and if interested....the concept is from a book called Workplace 2000.
I wish that this worked on school boards and school governance. It simply doesn't (first hand knowledge). I would like the leaders of this movement to apply it to public school governance and see what happens. For starters, the pressure to provide consent leads to group think, and fear of being judged as a troublemaker for refusing to consent. And yes, theoretically, everyone should be united in their aim, but that's where it breaks down in the real world. Superficial aims (words) and actual aims (actions) are VERY often at odds--and no number of rounds would ever change this. Perhaps it's okay not to provide consent if the group cannot reach it, and have a record of the lack of consent and reasons for it. In fact, unanimous consent in my experience is almost always the sign of a school board that is operating in deference to pressure of the perceived power centers, whether they be admin, other board members, union, etc. Aims are squishy, unreliable and dynamic things, when it comes down to it.
Hello Elizabeth, I'm very interested as Schools and Sociocracy Program Manager to hear which school board you have experienced this with. I've never heard of a public school board using sociocracy, though I have seen boards of directors at smaller independent schools that have more of a common shared vision use it. I've also seen schools where the school itself operates sociocratically and the board of directors uses majority vote, or defaults to majority vote in cases where consent can't be reached. You make very interesting points about aims and group think, thank you for your comment as it's good food for thought.
yes! You can just take it and use it. We have a bunch of free materials online. Our policy is that content is free and our time is for pay - so most classes cost money but articles and recordings etc are free. www.sociocracyforall.org/content
It seems that this methodology can only apply to the small and medium organizations. For a large organization (i.e. a nation), the process will become an endless painful annoying discussion all the time. Or is there any way to solve that issue?
Are you talking about group/circle size or organization size? Due to the fractal nature, no group would ever have to be big. If domains are clear then there's no reason why there would have to be an annoying level of cross-circle communication.
@@SociocracyForAll Thanks for your quick reply! The size is about the organisation. Even if all the circles are small enough to determine the decision, you cannot guarantee that thousands of hundreds of groups will have even only one thing in the consent level (i.e. There may be not one aim for either the big or small picture on all consent domains of all the groups). Especially for a nation that has many circles with conflict idea. May that happen in such a large organization? If so, how could we do to solve that?
@@_a_x_s_ I'm not fully sure I understand what you're saying but I agree that one has to look at enriching it with other methods for a country. By the way, for a country, it's not so much the number of people that becomes problematic but the fact, for example, running a city only requires let's say 2000 workers in a city of 100,000 people. Sociocracy is made for co-governance of workers, not citizens/members. Here are two resources for you on that: Could sociocracy be used to govern a country: www.sociocracyforall.org/sociocracy-for-a-country/ What about organizations with lots of members (who are uninvolved in operations/governance)? www.sociocracyforall.org/platform-co-op-governance-deep-democracy-on-scale/
@@SociocracyForAll Thank you. Really good content. Considering purchasing the handbook. I was thinking about Anarchism, but now I know my research interest is decentralisation government (i.e. Sociocracy).
This is the best video on sociocracy I have seen so far. I love that it is without any corniness. It is clear and straight-forward, not touchy-feely (at least for the first half or so). This is important, because many people who might benefit from this model would be put off by the more feelings-based videos. Even though the feelings part obviously matters a great deal, it is not a great entry-point for many in traditional/orange companies
the animations are good, the symbolism was a little strange, the audio was great and the content was AWESOME
as mentioned, the blinking animations are a little off and distracting
the "hats" used to describe circle roles were a little confusing
the voiceover was quality, no pops or hisses, and the speaker did a great job
and of all of the introductory resources on sociocracy that i've seen, this one goes the most in-depth while remaining accessible
thank you for posting this!
Is there maybe an issue with the export? Have you exported in enough frames per second? It seems strange that the animations are so slow and bulky.
This video does a great job of explaining sociocracy!
This is a great topic to cover. Please post more like this in the future. Excellent!!!
Thank you!
Thank you for this beautiful and inspiring video.
Well explained. This is the best video on sociocracy I have seen. Excellent!!!
Thank you very much!
"All sociocracy tools are integrated to get you two things ..." I recommend. Thanks.
The arts great; but the blinking animations are not there yet. I do appreciate the effort.
Looks like a talking shop, a recipe for getting nowt done, just meetings breeding meetings. Gives me the shivers.
If that's what you took away from this video, then it sounds like it's not a good fit for you. If you'd like to hear how practitioners respond to your question of balance between alignment and operations, there are answers.
@@SociocracyForAll no definitely not a good fit. I don't like the feel of it, too much formality and structure, too much diffusing accountability. Impractical and otherworldly, not for us.
@@deanteasdale8261 mature practicioners and proponents of Dynamic Governance will never claim that this system is a good fit for every group.
Some people are simply not willing to share the decision-making authority, or they have not surrounded themselves with people that are competent enough to be delegated to, while some others are comfortable being told what to do and how to do it.
For the various types mentioned above, Sociocracy is not a good fit.
But it has proven to be very practical for people who appreciate clarify of roles and responsibilities in the organization.
Your assessment that it seems to be fostering avoidance of accountability is simply due to a lack of understanding of the system.
Looks like a beautiful system. The only problem... people are involved. Would work great with computers or other logic based systems. People are a more unique environment.
Well explained. I really like the direction you are taking Sociocracy. Keep it up!
absolutly agree
Excellent presentation! could you please let additions of subtitles in order to provide this info to non english speaking audience?
Thank you! You're welcome to work with Ted on the translation of subtitles! ted@sociocracyforall.org
I'm familiar with this.... however I was part of something called Workplace 2000. They called the work groups "clusters". It failed. This was an IT company. Alot of people lost their jobs because management thought this would be very efficient. This was not the case. It turns out that every cluster needed more people/technical staff. We went back to a traditional way of working/managing. That was my experience... yours certainly may be different. Good luck.
Thanks for your comment! Sociocracy isn't really something still being tested, it's in use in hundreds of organizations. No idea what Workplace 2000 is but maybe a deeper comparison might be useful.
If the system is applied diligently, it works.
Any governance system will fail if it is not thoroughly understood or diligently applied.
It is the practicioners' responsibility to learn the rules of the game to successfully play the game.
A mature application of Sociocracy includes regular feedback mechanisms that allow the early detection of, and improvements on problems encountered in its practice .
@@Mukunda16108 Oh no I disagree....every situation is different....it was understood fine....the attempt was over 2 yrs....most of the staff that was part of this effort was unhappy due to lack of resources....as mentioned many jobs were eliminated bc this was supposed to take less staff....its presented to management as a money saver....which of course is the bottome line....and I dont care if it works somewhere else...it didnt work in this instance. and if interested....the concept is from a book called Workplace 2000.
I wish that this worked on school boards and school governance. It simply doesn't (first hand knowledge). I would like the leaders of this movement to apply it to public school governance and see what happens. For starters, the pressure to provide consent leads to group think, and fear of being judged as a troublemaker for refusing to consent. And yes, theoretically, everyone should be united in their aim, but that's where it breaks down in the real world. Superficial aims (words) and actual aims (actions) are VERY often at odds--and no number of rounds would ever change this. Perhaps it's okay not to provide consent if the group cannot reach it, and have a record of the lack of consent and reasons for it. In fact, unanimous consent in my experience is almost always the sign of a school board that is operating in deference to pressure of the perceived power centers, whether they be admin, other board members, union, etc. Aims are squishy, unreliable and dynamic things, when it comes down to it.
Hello Elizabeth, I'm very interested as Schools and Sociocracy Program Manager to hear which school board you have experienced this with. I've never heard of a public school board using sociocracy, though I have seen boards of directors at smaller independent schools that have more of a common shared vision use it. I've also seen schools where the school itself operates sociocratically and the board of directors uses majority vote, or defaults to majority vote in cases where consent can't be reached.
You make very interesting points about aims and group think, thank you for your comment as it's good food for thought.
Does Sociocracy exist as Free and/or Open Source Software? I can't tell from the information.
yes! You can just take it and use it. We have a bunch of free materials online. Our policy is that content is free and our time is for pay - so most classes cost money but articles and recordings etc are free. www.sociocracyforall.org/content
Thank you!
I am confused with Holacracy vs Sociocracy. Both are fairly similar. It's crazy.
You're right. Historically, Holacracy heavily built on sociocracy. How much and how much that is acknowledged is a topic of debate.
It seems that this methodology can only apply to the small and medium organizations. For a large organization (i.e. a nation), the process will become an endless painful annoying discussion all the time. Or is there any way to solve that issue?
Are you talking about group/circle size or organization size? Due to the fractal nature, no group would ever have to be big. If domains are clear then there's no reason why there would have to be an annoying level of cross-circle communication.
@@SociocracyForAll Thanks for your quick reply!
The size is about the organisation. Even if all the circles are small enough to determine the decision, you cannot guarantee that thousands of hundreds of groups will have even only one thing in the consent level (i.e. There may be not one aim for either the big or small picture on all consent domains of all the groups). Especially for a nation that has many circles with conflict idea. May that happen in such a large organization? If so, how could we do to solve that?
@@_a_x_s_ I'm not fully sure I understand what you're saying but I agree that one has to look at enriching it with other methods for a country. By the way, for a country, it's not so much the number of people that becomes problematic but the fact, for example, running a city only requires let's say 2000 workers in a city of 100,000 people. Sociocracy is made for co-governance of workers, not citizens/members. Here are two resources for you on that: Could sociocracy be used to govern a country: www.sociocracyforall.org/sociocracy-for-a-country/ What about organizations with lots of members (who are uninvolved in operations/governance)? www.sociocracyforall.org/platform-co-op-governance-deep-democracy-on-scale/
@@SociocracyForAll Thank you. Really good content. Considering purchasing the handbook. I was thinking about Anarchism, but now I know my research interest is decentralisation government (i.e. Sociocracy).
@@_a_x_s_ Welcome to the rabbit hole :) Here are free webinars that give a good overview: ow.ly/aKby50AGecl
Any major international companies where this is applied?
Some recent examples: www.sociocracyforall.org/how-to-transform-an-organization-lesson-from-a-20-years-journey-ludovic-cinquin/
www.sociocracyforall.org/sociocracy-and-bioland-working-better-together-with-the-aim-of-organic-farming-christine-brandmeir/
www.sociocracyforall.org/self-managed-teams-at-danfoss-esteering-vivek-menon/
When do you actually do anything.
Between meetings. The more clear you define the domains/roles, and the more autonomy you give, the more people will just be able to do.
How is Sociocracy different from Holacracy?
Super-short version: Holacracy was based on sociocracy. Read here: www.sociocracyforall.org/holacracy-and-sociocracy/
Thanks so much! Really helpful!
sounds good. How old are you?
Why does the female narrator have a barbie doll (not humanly sustainable) body shape?
We hear you.
Cuz it's a fucking cartoon.
Supercell - coc
Please use a voice that doesn't bore the listener to tears. Monotone, droning, unexciting. Bland. Bloddy awful.
oof, this framerate
Hahaha amazing nonsense!