Self-organising Teams and Collective Power with Ted Rau, Sociocracy for All - OrgDev Episode 6

How do you create more effective and inclusive organisations that draw on the collective power of your employees? Our latest episode of the OrgDev Podcast explores this with the briliant Ted Rau from Sociocracy for All. We discuss Ted's latest book Collective Power which elegantly explores power dynamics in organisations and how to structure your organisation so that everyone contributes to performance. It's an eye-opening discussion which will challenge your beliefs about how organisations can be run.

Order Your Copy of Collective Power here: :
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Collective-P...

Sociocracy for All
https://www.sociocracyforall.org/

Wish you had a handy recap of the episode? So did we.

That’s why each week in our Next Step to Better newsletter, we’re sharing From Pod to Practice – a 2-page visual summary of each episode designed to help you take the learning from the podcast and into your work.

You’ll get:
■ Key insights from the episode
■ A reflection prompt
■ A suggested action

Sign up now to get From Pod to Practice delivered to your inbox each week: https://distinction.live/keep-in-touch/

About Us

We’re Dani and Garin – Organisation Development (OD) practitioners who help leaders and people professionals tackle the messiness of organisational life. We focus on building leadership capability, strengthening team effectiveness, and designing practical, systemic development programmes that help you deliver on your team and organisational goals. We also offer coaching to support individual growth and change.

Find out more at www.distinction.live

We'd love to connect with you on Linked In:
linkedin.com/in/danibacon478
https://www.linkedin.com/in/garinrouch

Transcript

WEBVTT

00:00.240 --> 00:03.838
Hi and welcome to the Dev podcast. We're absolutely delighted

00:03.886 --> 00:07.030
to have Ted Rau join us today. Ted is

00:07.062 --> 00:10.366
someone that Danny and I have followed for a long time and has had many

00:10.390 --> 00:14.038
books that we've actually developed, such as like who decides, who decides

00:14.166 --> 00:17.294
one song, many voices. And he's released his newest

00:17.334 --> 00:20.558
book, which is Collective power, which has a really

00:20.606 --> 00:24.206
great description of a methodology for governance in organizations

00:24.230 --> 00:27.774
called sociocracy. So we really wanted to invite Ted along

00:27.854 --> 00:31.062
to unveil just how governance doesn't have to

00:31.078 --> 00:34.302
be the way it is in our organizations today, and to really sort of

00:34.318 --> 00:37.822
shed light on how you can actually make governance a really important way

00:37.838 --> 00:41.582
of actually helping our organisations become so much more effective as well.

00:41.718 --> 00:44.870
What we really like about Ted's books is they combine the fact that they're really

00:44.902 --> 00:49.094
well researched, they're really accessible, they sort of take complex ideas,

00:49.134 --> 00:52.510
but make them really relatable and simple. There's a real kind of precision in his

00:52.542 --> 00:56.502
language. So Danny and I have spent the past few weeks devouring his book and

00:56.518 --> 00:59.822
taking away lots of the principles and practice on there. And we're going to

00:59.878 --> 01:02.350
take you through some of the things that we've pulled out the book and ask

01:02.382 --> 01:05.846
the author directly about terms that he's thinking and how he's

01:05.870 --> 01:09.390
been applying it in the organization that he works with as well. So welcome,

01:09.422 --> 01:12.830
Ted, thanks so much for joining us today. Thank you so much for having me.

01:12.862 --> 01:16.510
I'm looking forward. Brilliant. So there's an educational

01:16.542 --> 01:20.886
element to sociocracy as well, isn't there? People who'll be joining our

01:20.990 --> 01:24.278
interview today, there are different stages of their understanding. So could you just sort of

01:24.286 --> 01:27.742
give us a brief introduction about what is sociocracy, how does

01:27.758 --> 01:30.234
it work and how did it come about, please?

01:30.824 --> 01:34.448
Sure. So what is it? First, we need to clarify what is

01:34.496 --> 01:38.104
governance? Because it's a governance system, but that doesn't typically do

01:38.144 --> 01:42.104
much for people. And the way I describe it is it answers.

01:42.264 --> 01:45.936
It answers two big questions. How do we decide? Because if

01:45.960 --> 01:49.080
you have a group of people deciding together,

01:49.152 --> 01:51.936
you need to have some sort of a decision making method. If I decide by

01:51.960 --> 01:55.384
myself, it's easier just decide. If the three of us decide together,

01:55.464 --> 01:58.846
then by what means do we do that? If we all say yes,

01:58.910 --> 02:02.318
if two of us say yes, how does that work? The other

02:02.366 --> 02:05.790
question that we have to answer in an organization is who decides

02:05.822 --> 02:09.214
what? So if I hold a department, does that mean

02:09.294 --> 02:12.822
we all decide together or I decide alone? How do we distribute things and

02:12.838 --> 02:16.286
so on? Can I override? Can somebody override what I decide.

02:16.430 --> 02:19.326
Those are all questions and how we distribute that.

02:19.470 --> 02:22.446
So sociocracy gives certain answers to that.

02:22.550 --> 02:25.404
It gives a decision making method, which is called consent,

02:25.534 --> 02:28.960
and it gives a way to decide who

02:28.992 --> 02:32.424
decides what and have that clear. And then one element

02:32.464 --> 02:35.432
that I always like to add, because it's important to me in sociology,

02:35.488 --> 02:38.924
is that we also want some

02:39.224 --> 02:42.352
sequencing over time. So there's a cyclical nature to it.

02:42.368 --> 02:46.168
There's reviews of everything that we do, so with term

02:46.216 --> 02:49.752
ends, and there's also just the whole idea that everything we do is

02:49.768 --> 02:53.108
our best shot for now, but we want to improve over time.

02:53.196 --> 02:56.236
Oh, and you asked, how does it come about? Sorry, that was. I knew there

02:56.260 --> 02:59.700
was another piece. Well, it is. The sociocratic soccer

02:59.732 --> 03:03.052
method, technically, is kind

03:03.068 --> 03:06.540
of the formal version of what we call sociocracy. And it

03:06.652 --> 03:10.052
was put together in the late 1970s in the current

03:10.108 --> 03:13.036
form, by an engineer, Jared Attenberg,

03:13.140 --> 03:17.340
who tried it out in his electronics

03:17.412 --> 03:21.276
company. And he put the pieces together that he, he had been

03:21.300 --> 03:25.044
trained as an engineer, so he knew cybernetics, and he's

03:25.124 --> 03:28.452
looked at human systems like this could be done better. Like, this is

03:28.508 --> 03:32.180
simply like, nobody would accept that if it were a machine. And this is also

03:32.212 --> 03:35.716
not how natural systems are built. And also a little interesting

03:35.820 --> 03:38.996
data point, is that he went to a Quaker school as a kid,

03:39.140 --> 03:42.384
so he saw a large group making decisions by consensus,

03:42.684 --> 03:45.870
which then also fed into how it describes consensus.

03:45.972 --> 03:49.266
That's really useful. Thank you. And again, a lot of organizations either

03:49.290 --> 03:53.138
do things like majority voting, or they'll do consensus.

03:53.266 --> 03:56.658
And consent is something that's quite different to that. How does consent

03:56.706 --> 04:01.290
work in practice then? So it depends a little bit of what we're contrasting

04:01.322 --> 04:04.578
with. Let's say. Let's say the most typical decision making

04:04.626 --> 04:07.834
method is you have a team and you kind of

04:07.874 --> 04:10.974
decide together. But it's very informal how you decide together.

04:11.454 --> 04:14.974
So everybody looks at each other, says things until somebody says,

04:15.014 --> 04:18.662
okay, looks like we're on the same page. And then you kind of move forward.

04:18.838 --> 04:22.062
That's the most common, I call that informal decision making.

04:22.238 --> 04:25.702
And often there are different aspects of it. Like there's a little bit

04:25.718 --> 04:28.750
of majority vote in it, right? If a lot of us are saying the same

04:28.782 --> 04:32.382
thing, we assume that we've now decided. If the most powerful

04:32.438 --> 04:35.582
person is on board, they might just call it and say,

04:35.638 --> 04:39.180
this looks like a decision. And then there's a little bit of a sense of

04:39.212 --> 04:42.820
we want everybody to be in the same boat. So it's mixing all the

04:42.852 --> 04:46.252
different decision making methods, but doesn't really clearly state how a decision

04:46.308 --> 04:50.204
is made. Consent is very clear. Consent is clear because it

04:50.244 --> 04:54.140
refers to the group aim. So what is the thing that we agreed

04:54.172 --> 04:57.476
we would do together? And then you evaluate a proposal

04:57.620 --> 05:01.636
according, like, in relation to the aim and say, okay, does this support

05:01.740 --> 05:05.002
or somehow hinder this aim? And if there's some sort

05:05.018 --> 05:08.186
of a violation or negative side effect and so on,

05:08.250 --> 05:11.698
somebody ideally objects because we want to protect what we're trying to do together.

05:11.786 --> 05:14.226
We don't want to, you know, shoot ourselves in the foot.

05:14.410 --> 05:17.634
So we look at the two, say there's a mismatch,

05:17.674 --> 05:21.274
and then somebody would object and say, this needs a little bit more work here.

05:21.394 --> 05:24.746
And if nobody objects, that means we've made a decision.

05:24.890 --> 05:28.490
The interesting thing about that is two things. One is we ask explicitly

05:28.562 --> 05:31.722
so we're not just sitting around and say, oh, it looks like we're all on

05:31.738 --> 05:35.380
board, but we say, okay, is there any objection? Because it's so important

05:35.452 --> 05:39.428
to surface these objections. You don't want to just kind of muddle

05:39.476 --> 05:43.396
through. You want to be really clear on, does anybody have an objection

05:43.460 --> 05:46.964
so that this can be improved? Another piece that it does is

05:47.004 --> 05:50.300
it refers our decisions or the backdrop with the

05:50.332 --> 05:53.628
aim leads us back to what are we here

05:53.796 --> 05:57.460
to do? What are we here for to do together? So I

05:57.492 --> 06:00.632
wouldn't object based on, but I don't like blue.

06:00.768 --> 06:04.112
I would only be able to object if there's something that actually

06:04.168 --> 06:07.664
affects the group, not just me personally, because we're here to further

06:07.704 --> 06:10.872
the group and the group aim. So what do we need to decide for that?

06:10.928 --> 06:14.512
So it's very sharp and brings us, or very crisp, I want to

06:14.528 --> 06:17.624
say, and really is designed to move the group forward

06:17.704 --> 06:21.040
for whatever it's doing. Yeah. And Ted, I think one of the things you talk

06:21.072 --> 06:24.368
about in the book is that people can't stand aside. They can't opt out of

06:24.456 --> 06:27.592
consenting or objecting. And that felt really important to

06:27.608 --> 06:30.104
me. So could you just say a little bit more about that?

06:30.764 --> 06:33.916
Yeah. It's so common that people want to stand aside. And if,

06:33.980 --> 06:37.348
and sometimes people argue with me on that and say,

06:37.476 --> 06:40.676
why wouldn't I be able to stand aside? And there's a lot of reasons

06:40.700 --> 06:44.188
why you wouldn't be able to stand aside, because if we make a group together

06:44.276 --> 06:47.380
and you say, oh, just go right

06:47.412 --> 06:51.220
ahead, everybody. I think this is a crappy idea, but just do

06:51.252 --> 06:55.330
it. You know, you already know that the person later

06:55.402 --> 06:58.314
on will say that they never said yes to this,

06:58.474 --> 07:02.442
that they only stood aside so somebody is basically separating

07:02.498 --> 07:06.138
themselves from the group. So that's not what I understand as moving

07:06.186 --> 07:09.634
forward. The other piece is if somebody has something to say,

07:09.754 --> 07:12.762
like they really honestly believe that something is going to

07:12.778 --> 07:16.426
be a bad idea for the team. Why on earth would we not pay attention

07:16.490 --> 07:20.018
to that? So this whole standing aside business, there's no

07:20.066 --> 07:22.826
scenario that I can think of in which it's a good idea.

07:22.930 --> 07:26.410
A tiny little footnote is, if somebody has just joined the group,

07:26.602 --> 07:30.094
you know, this is their first meeting, and they say, I simply don't know enough.

07:31.274 --> 07:34.722
Can I. Can I be taken off the hook for this decision? I'd say,

07:34.818 --> 07:38.066
fine, but even for that, I have a little bit of like, well, do you

07:38.090 --> 07:40.946
trust us enough, or do you want us to reopen it? Because you are a

07:40.970 --> 07:43.814
decision maker, I want you to take responsibility.

07:44.594 --> 07:48.346
So there's that relationship to responsibility that's

07:48.370 --> 07:52.122
really important. We can really only truly take responsibility

07:52.218 --> 07:55.522
together if everybody either says yes

07:55.658 --> 07:58.506
or says no, there's not really anything in between.

07:58.650 --> 08:02.258
Yeah, that's brilliant. Yeah. So, as you said, their power and responsibility are

08:02.266 --> 08:05.778
their core themes that kind of you talk about in the book, and you use

08:05.826 --> 08:09.082
terms like power over and power under, if you can expand on that

08:09.098 --> 08:12.458
a bit for us. Yeah. We were really interested in this because we love what

08:12.466 --> 08:16.642
you're saying about power, but we particularly like the thing about power under.

08:16.778 --> 08:19.914
Power under. Yeah. Because it's something that we don't pay enough

08:19.954 --> 08:23.282
attention to. We often work with the leaders, but the people that are actually sort

08:23.298 --> 08:26.978
of practicing power under are really the ones that can make or break

08:27.026 --> 08:30.546
whether your initiative works or not. Yeah, totally. So let's

08:30.570 --> 08:33.890
start with the obvious one. Power over. Power over is

08:33.922 --> 08:37.466
when somebody reaches into your sphere of authority,

08:37.530 --> 08:41.290
right. If somebody tells me, I don't know what color shirt to wear, I would

08:41.322 --> 08:45.094
say that's really going into what I can decide.

08:45.834 --> 08:49.090
So that's an overreach. If I am clearly

08:49.122 --> 08:52.466
in charge of a project and somebody walks in and tells me that I'm doing

08:52.490 --> 08:56.380
it for, that's overreach. That's power over. And really, all of our

08:56.412 --> 08:59.404
decisions are built on power over. In, like,

08:59.484 --> 09:03.788
in hierarchical organizations, that's just all the time. Right. Because in

09:03.876 --> 09:07.540
every. Basically by default, but often it's not so clear

09:07.652 --> 09:11.188
in a hierarchical organization, whoever is higher up in the chain

09:11.236 --> 09:15.052
can override whatever you do. So it's basically,

09:15.188 --> 09:19.124
it's all power over, even though we might delegate and all of that, as long

09:19.204 --> 09:22.944
as there's default, that somebody can override. I candidates power over.

09:23.254 --> 09:26.470
That's what you default to, then the other one that you just

09:26.502 --> 09:30.134
spoke to is power under. So I see the

09:30.214 --> 09:33.590
perfect balance is really when you have a certain area of

09:33.622 --> 09:36.678
responsibility or authority and you perfectly fill it.

09:36.806 --> 09:40.270
So if in power over, somebody reaches into your

09:40.302 --> 09:43.606
bubble, so to speak, right. But in power under, somebody has

09:43.630 --> 09:47.662
a bubble, but they're not fully, fully covering it.

09:47.758 --> 09:51.262
So there are decisions that they should be making, could be making, and they

09:51.278 --> 09:54.456
throw their hands on it and say, I don't know, somebody else decides or the

09:54.480 --> 09:58.248
people who stand aside, that's typical power under

09:58.296 --> 10:01.800
behavior, because they're not willing to be responsible. So while they

10:01.832 --> 10:05.256
are in this bubble where they have a say on a decision, they choose

10:05.320 --> 10:08.616
not to claim it. And then that, that's what I'm describing in the book,

10:08.640 --> 10:12.000
right. Leads to some sort of a domino effect. If individuals

10:12.032 --> 10:14.632
don't actually hold their power in a healthy way,

10:14.768 --> 10:18.432
then teams, then all that toxic

10:18.488 --> 10:22.354
stuff that happens there leaks into the team level. And if teams

10:22.394 --> 10:26.146
don't hold their power, then it leaks into the organization and

10:26.250 --> 10:31.054
everybody is then in this double bind and it's really unhelpful,

10:31.674 --> 10:34.402
the other one. So if we now the two other ones,

10:34.458 --> 10:38.534
power within and power with, if we have somebody perfectly

10:39.354 --> 10:42.778
holding their bubble, like filling exactly the bubble that they have and not more,

10:42.826 --> 10:46.626
not less, we would call that power within. So that person really owns the

10:46.650 --> 10:50.334
power. But then the whole point of the book is that

10:50.454 --> 10:54.422
even an organization full of people who act accordingly,

10:54.558 --> 10:58.358
according to power with, would not be enough to run an organization.

10:58.446 --> 11:01.646
We also need the agreements to make clear how we're relating to

11:01.670 --> 11:05.134
each other, and then we're at the realm of government. Fabulous. Thank you.

11:05.214 --> 11:09.150
So when you see people not stepping up and taking the power that they

11:09.182 --> 11:12.542
should, what's your sense from working with people and organisations?

11:12.598 --> 11:15.502
What gets in the way? What stops people kind of stepping up and taking the

11:15.518 --> 11:18.134
power that's there that they could be taking?

11:18.834 --> 11:22.698
Well, I guess the most common one might be fear, fear of being

11:22.746 --> 11:26.210
responsible. And I guess I also wanted to

11:26.242 --> 11:29.754
say that I have some compassion for that. I mean, part of me has.

11:29.874 --> 11:33.898
A big part of me just gets insanely pissed off when that happens,

11:34.066 --> 11:38.290
but another part of me gets it because the

11:38.322 --> 11:41.938
power over paradigm in which we all were raised also

11:41.986 --> 11:45.700
comes with punishment, right? So those people have

11:45.732 --> 11:49.124
just learned enough that if you go out on a limb

11:49.204 --> 11:53.260
or you're too loud, you're too visible, whatever you're

11:53.292 --> 11:56.924
gonna be like, being held responsible means being punished.

11:57.004 --> 12:00.148
So it makes a lot of sense. If people want to avoid

12:00.196 --> 12:03.668
that situation. So it comes with the makeup of how we

12:03.716 --> 12:06.780
have been conditioned. So the fear of that, I think,

12:06.812 --> 12:10.028
is the biggest one. And then kind of all the siblings of that,

12:10.076 --> 12:14.280
you know, like, not being confident, but that's almost

12:14.432 --> 12:17.440
maybe the same on the side of the same coin.

12:17.472 --> 12:20.528
I don't know. Yeah, it's really interesting what you're saying there.

12:20.576 --> 12:23.672
I guess one of the things we really enjoyed about the book as well is

12:23.808 --> 12:27.844
you kind of step inside your own feelings as you're going through the facilitation process.

12:28.264 --> 12:31.576
We really enjoyed. There's one bit we've actually taken. We've actually been applying

12:31.600 --> 12:35.416
it since. It's those kind of moments when you're

12:35.440 --> 12:38.392
in the room and you're working with the group and you know where they need

12:38.408 --> 12:41.940
to get to, but you'll often sort of see different behaviors

12:42.092 --> 12:45.380
and people might say things that are quite controversial or take a position,

12:45.572 --> 12:48.868
and sometimes it is the response and is that frustration internally? How do we

12:48.876 --> 12:51.684
get move them on? And it's the sort of use of the phrase like,

12:51.724 --> 12:54.916
tell me more when you really want to explore a little bit deeper what's going

12:54.940 --> 12:58.284
on. Whereas really, the invitation sometimes is to get defensive or to try to

12:58.324 --> 13:01.172
move them on or go round them as well. So we thought that was a

13:01.188 --> 13:05.036
really good facilitation technique as well. Yeah, and it's really the

13:05.060 --> 13:07.796
only one because, as I said earlier, with the domino effect,

13:07.860 --> 13:10.800
if people. People are not holding their own stuff,

13:10.952 --> 13:14.504
it will leak into the group. There's nothing you can say to

13:14.544 --> 13:18.304
really move somebody along besides supporting them in

13:18.344 --> 13:21.856
claiming, like, being in that power with space, you and you can't be

13:21.880 --> 13:25.288
coerced or talked into or punished into being in your

13:25.336 --> 13:28.864
own power with. The only thing we can do is gently support

13:28.944 --> 13:31.944
you in kind of wrapping your head around where you're at. That's what tell me

13:31.984 --> 13:35.936
more does, right? It gives you more information and it gives the person a

13:35.960 --> 13:39.224
chance to figure out where they're at. And that way,

13:39.304 --> 13:42.528
typically it shifts much faster because it comes from the inside.

13:42.656 --> 13:46.040
It's the same metaphor as you can pull

13:46.072 --> 13:48.928
on grass to make it grow. It's the same logic.

13:49.016 --> 13:52.104
It has to come from the inside. It's the fastest

13:52.144 --> 13:55.872
way. I mean, what else are you going to do? It's a good metaphor.

13:56.008 --> 13:59.296
You said something in the book which is really interesting, which is self responsibility,

13:59.400 --> 14:02.872
is the ability to see clearly what one's needs,

14:02.968 --> 14:06.592
obligations and contributions are and what is outside of that.

14:06.608 --> 14:10.272
And that's essential for building a collective. Is that like the core of

14:10.288 --> 14:13.804
it for people to actually understand what their self responsibility is.

14:14.344 --> 14:17.592
Yes. In addition to the governance piece. But I

14:17.608 --> 14:20.976
guess that's kind of implicit in what you meant as a quote,

14:21.080 --> 14:24.208
because if I see that something is

14:24.256 --> 14:28.104
outside of what I'm doing, it is also still my collective

14:28.144 --> 14:30.804
responsibility to contribute to filling those gaps.

14:31.704 --> 14:35.704
I guess without that addition, there's sometimes in

14:35.744 --> 14:39.274
self organized organizations, there's a little bit of a tendency that, that I

14:39.314 --> 14:42.650
dislike and that's too close to this. So let me tell you the situation

14:42.722 --> 14:46.602
that's fairly common. And it's that people have these

14:46.658 --> 14:50.170
very clear roles and they're very proud of how they're holding their roles,

14:50.202 --> 14:53.986
you know, and it's all super clear. And then something happens that

14:54.010 --> 14:57.386
is outside of that. That is not in anybody's roles. And people say, well,

14:57.410 --> 15:00.094
it's not in my role. It's like, well, okay,

15:00.954 --> 15:04.170
but that's not the end of it. You know, that's nice that you know that,

15:04.202 --> 15:08.338
but what about us all trying to fill in the rest?

15:08.466 --> 15:12.210
So there has to be self repair. There has to be the flexibility

15:12.362 --> 15:15.874
of filling those gaps. So that is our shared responsibility as well,

15:15.914 --> 15:19.106
which then is in the realm of governance. So again, it always, to me,

15:19.130 --> 15:22.402
the calculation is power within, so you're

15:22.458 --> 15:25.986
holding your own and then the agreements so that

15:26.010 --> 15:29.498
we know how to fill things. So without that, you only

15:29.546 --> 15:33.102
have one part of the equation. Yeah, I guess the challenge is

15:33.118 --> 15:36.422
if that's not happening from individuals, then it then falls on the responsibility

15:36.478 --> 15:39.710
of the leaders, doesn't it, to catch it all. And that's when we often then

15:39.742 --> 15:43.166
revert back to hierarchy. Yeah. And the irony of

15:43.190 --> 15:47.206
it all is that then we hold leaders responsible for doing

15:47.270 --> 15:50.750
overreach because we refuse to participate in filling

15:50.782 --> 15:53.654
the gaps. I mean, we really, in a way,

15:53.734 --> 15:57.514
all the, I mean, that might be too big of a claim, but a

15:57.554 --> 16:00.970
lot of the functions that we put on leaders could really be

16:01.002 --> 16:04.586
taken more by the system. And the fact that we have to resort

16:04.650 --> 16:07.898
so much on leaders,

16:08.026 --> 16:12.002
to leaders is really on us because we're not holding the system

16:12.058 --> 16:15.986
well enough and we're not building the system. We're not educated in

16:16.010 --> 16:19.554
that way. So that way, because we don't have

16:19.594 --> 16:23.008
systems to govern ourselves, we have to look to somebody to make the decision.

16:23.106 --> 16:26.100
But that's really, we're participating in the system.

16:26.252 --> 16:29.716
That makes it a necessity in the organizations out

16:29.740 --> 16:33.764
there, and it makes that job for the leaders so much harder. Taking responsibility,

16:33.804 --> 16:36.784
it becomes untenable, doesn't it? And unmanageable.

16:37.364 --> 16:40.700
Right. So we're putting leaders into this crazy double bind, then,

16:40.732 --> 16:44.044
of like, please do our job plus your job,

16:44.204 --> 16:46.544
and we're going to blame you for it. Yeah.

16:47.444 --> 16:50.690
It doesn't sound like a fun thing to do, does it? So. And I think

16:50.722 --> 16:54.290
more and more people are noticing that. But more commonly,

16:54.322 --> 16:58.134
actually, where kind of the movement is at, I think, is that people

16:58.994 --> 17:02.314
throw out the baby with the bathwater. Right. And they say, we don't have bosses.

17:02.394 --> 17:06.106
We don't have managers. Like, sorry, I'm not. I'm not with you

17:06.130 --> 17:10.002
on that one. That is just too naive. That is just taking one part of

17:10.018 --> 17:14.482
it that's throwing out the clarity with

17:14.578 --> 17:17.482
the power over. I want to get rid of the power over. I don't want

17:17.498 --> 17:20.712
to get rid of power. Power will be there. Yeah.

17:20.768 --> 17:24.272
And I think that's, as you get further and further into the book as well,

17:24.328 --> 17:27.488
it challenges a lot of the misunderstandings and myths. I think sometimes people

17:27.536 --> 17:30.696
sort of view when they have sort of a naive view, it's a little bit

17:30.720 --> 17:34.280
like an underage soccer game where all the kids follow the ball round,

17:34.352 --> 17:37.896
whereas really, what you're saying is, actually everything needs to be

17:37.920 --> 17:41.672
nested in its right place. When that happens, we have

17:41.688 --> 17:45.040
a division of labor within the organization. And you

17:45.072 --> 17:48.640
say things such as, like, there isn't necessarily a flat organization. There is

17:48.672 --> 17:53.004
actually a certain extent a hierarchy, but it's not the hierarchy that we're familiar with.

17:53.304 --> 17:56.864
Yeah, very much so, because, I mean, a very simple example for that

17:56.904 --> 18:00.536
is that in my own organization, where 240

18:00.600 --> 18:04.176
people, most of them volunteer, but, like, 30 something people in paid roles.

18:04.280 --> 18:07.960
And so each of us holds several roles, like,

18:07.992 --> 18:11.440
I hold, I don't know, seven, eight roles kind of spread out

18:11.472 --> 18:15.552
over different teams, across different teams of the organization. And there are several

18:15.608 --> 18:19.032
people with whom I have this kind of pairing of. In this circle,

18:19.208 --> 18:22.200
you're the leader, and I'm a member. And in that circle,

18:22.272 --> 18:25.844
I'm the leader, you're the member, like, in all the different constellations.

18:26.264 --> 18:29.840
So what does that mean for hierarchy? It means, well, all of these

18:29.872 --> 18:33.400
different teams are nested somewhere, just like you said.

18:33.552 --> 18:36.616
And then people play those roles and kind of go in and out of the

18:36.640 --> 18:40.576
leadership roles, but not because that particular person is

18:40.600 --> 18:43.428
higher than me, but because that role is in a.

18:43.536 --> 18:46.300
That is in a certain spot in the organization.

18:46.492 --> 18:50.548
So it's decoupling people from their roles. And with

18:50.596 --> 18:54.340
that also messing with that very traditional sense of hierarchy.

18:54.492 --> 18:56.948
I think one of the things that's going to be very tempting for people that

18:56.996 --> 19:00.220
might be searching for an antidote to the traditional hierarchies we find ourselves

19:00.292 --> 19:05.236
is you talk about good governance means no drama, no accusations, no conspiracies,

19:05.420 --> 19:09.572
minimal effort, maximum clarity. That sounds

19:09.588 --> 19:12.524
like an ideal place to work.

19:12.684 --> 19:16.268
How can good governance create that? Yeah, I mean,

19:16.316 --> 19:19.796
by having all checking all the boxes, like have a

19:19.820 --> 19:22.704
decision making method, be clear when it has to be used.

19:23.244 --> 19:27.260
Like for example, in sociocracy, we use consent decision making for policy decision,

19:27.332 --> 19:31.156
and we trust people to make decisions on their own for everything

19:31.220 --> 19:35.076
operational. That is a fairly clear way of doing it. You can

19:35.100 --> 19:38.464
also define it differently, but my point is it has to be,

19:38.774 --> 19:42.390
if it's not defined, then people are going to creatively fill the

19:42.422 --> 19:45.686
things, and that's probably not what you want, because then we get all the

19:45.710 --> 19:49.038
power, overpower on the stuff, typically. So either

19:49.086 --> 19:52.478
nothing happens or people, or it's going to be like a lord of the flies

19:52.526 --> 19:57.870
kind of situation. So governance is really what gets

19:57.902 --> 20:01.950
us out of the mess. So any organization that

20:01.982 --> 20:05.264
will have all those boxes checked

20:05.344 --> 20:08.752
probably will be in some sort of. Yeah. Will it. Will it be in

20:08.768 --> 20:12.464
a healthy situation? Unless of course, the rub is, you know, one person decides that

20:12.504 --> 20:16.136
would be defined, but then it's defined as power. Over the way I

20:16.160 --> 20:19.656
imagine it, to Sweden, it's almost like an

20:19.680 --> 20:23.656
irrigation system. I really like the image of the metaphor for an irrigation

20:23.720 --> 20:27.520
system because we all understand that having no water is probably not

20:27.552 --> 20:31.412
good. Just like having no power is probably not so helpful, having a

20:31.468 --> 20:35.004
lot of water at once. We also know that that's not so great,

20:35.084 --> 20:38.180
right? If you think of like a huge wave, that's there's a lot of destruction

20:38.212 --> 20:42.188
there. And having like water sit in one place typically means that,

20:42.236 --> 20:45.596
you know, that it gets just yucky and yucky over time.

20:45.740 --> 20:49.412
So it's really like that. So what we need to do is we need to

20:49.468 --> 20:52.844
take all the power that will be somewhere and distribute

20:52.884 --> 20:56.052
it in a way so that it flows and that it can go to all

20:56.068 --> 21:00.184
the different places that things need to be done. Just like an irrigation system funnels

21:00.264 --> 21:03.616
the appropriate amount of water into the place

21:03.680 --> 21:06.728
within a plant can do something with it. Now,

21:06.776 --> 21:09.976
if we have a leak somewhere, then we will lose energy,

21:10.160 --> 21:13.936
right? And that's exactly what happens. If, for example, you have a boss of a

21:13.960 --> 21:17.712
company, let's say everything below that bus is working perfectly,

21:17.808 --> 21:21.752
but there's one particular area where the bus just doesn't show up.

21:21.928 --> 21:25.512
That's the equivalent of a leak. And you can have the leaks on all

21:25.528 --> 21:28.766
of the levels. But now imagine you have leaks on all

21:28.790 --> 21:32.246
the levels, then probably there's not going to be a lot of water reaching the

21:32.270 --> 21:35.918
plants. And that's exactly what happens in organization. Exactly. That people

21:35.966 --> 21:39.310
just don't do things and they're wondering why are we, why are we

21:39.342 --> 21:42.870
here all day, but nothing happens. Yeah. And I guess it's

21:42.902 --> 21:47.030
one of the things about governance, it's not necessarily something that's foregrounded

21:47.062 --> 21:50.526
in leaders sort of thoughts about. They're kind of aware of all the symptoms

21:50.550 --> 21:53.926
of all the problems that come with governance, but don't necessarily make the time to

21:53.950 --> 21:57.118
work on it as well. There's something you talk about the fact that good governance

21:57.246 --> 22:01.262
keeps people together, keeps them apart and keeps them aligned at

22:01.278 --> 22:05.022
the same time. It's that kind of intentionality, isn't it, in terms of really thinking

22:05.078 --> 22:08.582
about how to divide it, what is power, who has it and how

22:08.598 --> 22:11.702
do we do it. So it's kind of, it's working in a fluent way.

22:11.838 --> 22:14.434
I have nothing to add. Yes, you said it really well.

22:15.574 --> 22:19.166
I think that intentionality of the links between the different parts of the organization is

22:19.190 --> 22:22.014
really, is what stands out for me as well. When you read kind of about

22:22.054 --> 22:26.006
sociocracy, so often it's left in organizations just to, we'll just

22:26.030 --> 22:29.342
keep our fingers crossed and hope that different bits of the organizations talk to

22:29.358 --> 22:32.702
each other or link up or integrate, whereas the model that you

22:32.718 --> 22:35.902
talk about is much more intentional, those links between the circles to

22:35.918 --> 22:39.558
make sure that information flows as it should. Yeah. So for people who

22:39.646 --> 22:43.502
are not familiar with that, if we have, let's say a

22:43.638 --> 22:47.174
marketing circle and underneath we have a social media circle,

22:47.294 --> 22:51.166
then what we will typically do is we will have two people that attend both

22:51.310 --> 22:54.526
marketing circle and social media circle so that those two

22:54.550 --> 22:58.134
people can be the bridges to bring information back and forth.

22:58.254 --> 23:01.390
And as you're saying, instead of crossing our fingers that somehow

23:01.582 --> 23:05.166
the two teams will be aligned, we will make sure that they are aligned because

23:05.230 --> 23:08.274
that's really important. And at the same time,

23:08.614 --> 23:12.406
that doesn't take away from the fact that social media will

23:12.470 --> 23:15.976
be empowered to make the decisions on social media and marketing

23:16.040 --> 23:20.004
on however we define their domain minus social media.

23:20.944 --> 23:24.400
So one can have that both end of alignment and

23:24.432 --> 23:27.768
autonomy to decide as long as one designs it really

23:27.816 --> 23:30.552
well. And as soon as you cut corners, you know, it's a little bit like

23:30.568 --> 23:34.304
a cheese where you put so many holes that eventually it might fall apart.

23:34.424 --> 23:37.856
So one can cut corners. But there is, I think, a critical mass that

23:37.880 --> 23:41.646
one does have to ensure one of the other principles we

23:41.670 --> 23:44.854
really liked was the good enough for now, safe enough to try.

23:45.014 --> 23:48.542
So consent doesn't mean you have to know everything and

23:48.558 --> 23:51.726
you have to make a decision based on kind of a perfect set of

23:51.750 --> 23:54.446
knowledge. It's the good enough for now. I think it was a really good kind

23:54.470 --> 23:58.038
of rule of thumb to help people move forward and not get stuck.

23:58.126 --> 24:01.342
Yeah. And I think obviously in organizations things like perfectionism are

24:01.358 --> 24:05.070
really rife or being risk averse, not want to be the one that makes

24:05.102 --> 24:08.374
the mistake. Is it like a good way of sort of de

24:08.414 --> 24:12.542
risking things so people feel more comfortable to actually make progress and make decision?

24:12.718 --> 24:16.438
Yeah, it's that, yes, it's the, it's the humbleness

24:16.606 --> 24:19.990
that we are trying to do the best we can, but we can

24:20.022 --> 24:23.646
predict the future. So there's a lot to say here about navigating in

24:23.670 --> 24:27.594
complexity. Right. Because our, our conditioning of

24:28.494 --> 24:31.766
making sure we don't make a mistake because of the fear and all of that

24:31.790 --> 24:34.990
that we talked about earlier leads to a situation where people would

24:35.022 --> 24:38.300
rather talk than stick their head out or do something.

24:38.462 --> 24:41.280
And in sociocracy, what we do is exactly the opposite.

24:41.392 --> 24:44.404
We try to, with the consent of the group,

24:45.424 --> 24:49.240
find a next step. According to that slogan, good enough for

24:49.272 --> 24:52.944
now. That is good enough. Because then the interesting thing that

24:52.984 --> 24:56.320
happens is that we now learn something

24:56.432 --> 25:00.280
from our doing and then that learning feeds

25:00.312 --> 25:03.816
into the review and the improvement because it's not only good enough.

25:03.880 --> 25:07.756
Right. But as you quoted, it's good enough for now because we

25:07.780 --> 25:11.012
will look at it again, we will improve it over time, but we will improve

25:11.068 --> 25:14.700
it not based on the hypothesis that were in our heads, but based

25:14.732 --> 25:18.420
on the real life experience that we just gathered by doing it after it was

25:18.452 --> 25:21.556
already good enough. So again,

25:21.660 --> 25:25.148
it's about that balance of, yes,

25:25.196 --> 25:28.204
we want to be aligned with our aim and make sure it's safe, yes,

25:28.324 --> 25:32.238
but we also want to do something because really reality is the best teacher.

25:32.356 --> 25:36.058
So. But that requires a whole different shift

25:36.106 --> 25:39.850
in thinking. If people are scared to take responsibility,

25:39.962 --> 25:43.954
that's not going to fly. Right. So they need to accept that they don't know

25:44.074 --> 25:46.294
and that together they will find out.

25:47.114 --> 25:50.274
That's the tall order. I mean, yeah, that's a big

25:50.314 --> 25:53.706
one. I guess that kind of like iterative approach, there's a

25:53.730 --> 25:56.930
hint of agile in there almost, isn't it? In terms of like ways of thinking?

25:57.002 --> 26:00.498
And if an organization has a successful agile program, then some.

26:00.546 --> 26:04.666
Is that fertile ground for sociocracy, do you think? I think you described as

26:04.770 --> 26:08.706
sociocracy is a scaled version of agile, is that

26:08.730 --> 26:13.374
right? Yes, exactly that. I mean, really what for what agile is for projects.

26:13.794 --> 26:17.410
That's the same as sociocracy for organizations

26:17.442 --> 26:20.626
on the higher levels of sort of more than management levels, if you want to

26:20.650 --> 26:23.994
use those words. So yeah,

26:24.114 --> 26:27.442
who sets the container in which an agile team works?

26:27.498 --> 26:31.454
So that would then be decided by socratic principles. No, the two,

26:31.574 --> 26:34.766
two of them mesh perfectly. One can just take them exactly

26:34.790 --> 26:38.222
as they are and combine them. It's perfect. We lifted out loads

26:38.238 --> 26:41.046
of principles from the book, so we're going to lift a few out. Is that

26:41.070 --> 26:44.486
okay? This isn't a quiz. We just want to get your view on

26:44.510 --> 26:46.634
them as well. I think, again,

26:48.174 --> 26:52.054
way governance is a form of maybe not the right term, but bureaucracy.

26:52.094 --> 26:54.754
But it's that bureaucracy is policy,

26:55.214 --> 26:58.574
it's consistency in an organization that it's often

26:58.614 --> 27:01.930
got a bad pr, hasn't it? But if just the right kind of bureaucracy

27:01.962 --> 27:05.814
can make all of the difference, is that something that you're advocating with sociocracy?

27:06.114 --> 27:09.802
Yes, yes, yes, yes. And the reason for that is just because

27:09.858 --> 27:12.850
I so often see the opposite also. I mean, yes,

27:12.962 --> 27:16.738
totally what you're saying, bureaucracy is a bad rep. And I've seen so

27:16.826 --> 27:20.626
many organizations where everything is unclear and then everybody just looks at each

27:20.650 --> 27:23.386
other and said, well, I don't know, it depends on this and that. Well,

27:23.410 --> 27:26.242
I don't know. Well, it depends on what our theory of changes depends on what

27:26.258 --> 27:29.360
our mission really is. And are we doing this? So they're basically, they're just stuck

27:29.392 --> 27:33.280
in questions and more questions and more questions. So they

27:33.312 --> 27:37.952
have too little clarity and too little specificities, especially specificities

27:38.048 --> 27:41.688
is, I think the point here. So what is it that we're doing? Why are

27:41.696 --> 27:44.684
we doing it? So who are we doing it with? All of those things.

27:45.584 --> 27:48.864
And then bureaucracy, I think has a bad rep because first

27:48.904 --> 27:52.296
of all, it's often used kind of in a sweeping power over

27:52.360 --> 27:55.562
way, right, where just because your last name starts with this and

27:55.578 --> 27:59.114
that letter, this is what's going to happen to you. Like, you know, there's not,

27:59.154 --> 28:03.082
there's just not room for discernment so much. So it just

28:03.178 --> 28:07.134
tends to over, over generalize. But I think generalization

28:07.514 --> 28:11.642
is a good method. We just need to balance well of

28:11.698 --> 28:14.434
where do we just want to wing it and leave it open and not,

28:14.514 --> 28:18.826
not specify and maybe just be open to whatever

28:18.890 --> 28:22.276
will happen next time we touch it or when do we want to categorize

28:22.300 --> 28:25.212
and say, okay, from now on, this is how we're going to do it and

28:25.228 --> 28:28.252
so on. But the interesting thing is it's very similar

28:28.308 --> 28:32.744
to the parallel to the power over power under stuff, where we all

28:33.044 --> 28:37.132
know I would. My claim is we are all in power under

28:37.228 --> 28:40.924
some of our time and also in power over some of our time.

28:41.044 --> 28:44.356
Now, the same happens with bureaucracy or kind of loosey

28:44.380 --> 28:47.952
goosey kind of governance. So this is a dynamic balance,

28:48.008 --> 28:51.280
right? You can't just hit the perfect middle so easily.

28:51.392 --> 28:54.824
You will probably like, lean a little bit too far this way, lean a

28:54.864 --> 28:58.016
little bit too far that way, and realize, oh, now we're micromanaging each

28:58.040 --> 29:01.408
other. This is not fun. Let's undo those rules and, oh, now I

29:01.416 --> 29:05.496
have no idea how anything is done here. Let's make a few rules. So it's

29:05.560 --> 29:09.376
really something where we have to feel more into the edges and into the borders

29:09.400 --> 29:13.056
and see whether we're comfortable. Then there's not one way of doing it.

29:13.080 --> 29:16.330
It really depends on where people, um, where people's

29:16.362 --> 29:19.770
comfort zone is on that. Yeah, I think that's the mantra, isn't it? For many

29:19.802 --> 29:22.834
situations, it depends, doesn't it? I think if you start to sort of lay out

29:22.874 --> 29:26.250
a consistent five step process, it's, you know, every context is

29:26.282 --> 29:29.450
different, isn't it? Yeah. And I always feel bad in my sociocracy classes,

29:29.482 --> 29:32.810
I sometimes make this joke that I write like three answers that you get

29:32.842 --> 29:36.346
all the time, you know, like, it will probably. Most of the time it

29:36.370 --> 29:39.402
will be depends. And then typically it's both.

29:39.578 --> 29:42.170
That's another thing. If people are like, is it more this or is it more

29:42.202 --> 29:45.590
that? Like both. And the third answer

29:45.622 --> 29:49.118
that I typically give is give feedback, and that applies

29:49.166 --> 29:52.126
here too. So what do I do if I feel like my organization is to

29:52.150 --> 29:54.894
bureaucratic? Well, the first thing is to say it so that then you can address

29:54.934 --> 29:58.566
it together. What do I do if I feel like

29:58.710 --> 30:01.670
we have not enough clarity? Well, give that feedback.

30:01.782 --> 30:05.622
So there's a few just standard go to options that tend to

30:05.638 --> 30:09.126
be the typical suspects all the time. Yeah. I think that feeling your way

30:09.150 --> 30:12.652
into it is really important because people so, so often just want certainty.

30:12.758 --> 30:15.304
We were doing it that way, so we're now going to do it that way.

30:15.424 --> 30:18.784
Deal done, off we go. But that feeling your way through it and just

30:18.904 --> 30:22.784
flexing and shifting and learning as you go is so

30:22.824 --> 30:25.896
important. Yeah. And how much more we need to know so that we

30:25.920 --> 30:29.640
can do that. Right. It's a little bit like I often

30:29.712 --> 30:33.512
make this comparison with learning how to read and write because collaboration

30:33.568 --> 30:36.964
to me is basically the same thing on the level up in a way,

30:37.984 --> 30:41.816
you know, we get, we learn so much around reading and

30:41.840 --> 30:45.976
writing and writing essays and so on. We learn so little about decision

30:46.040 --> 30:48.672
making. Just that difference sometimes gets to me,

30:48.848 --> 30:52.528
but in a way for decision

30:52.616 --> 30:56.024
making, for writing. Right now, the situation that we

30:56.064 --> 30:59.072
have is that we've only ever learned to write certain words. You know,

30:59.088 --> 31:01.912
like this is how you write that. We have not learned to make up our

31:01.928 --> 31:05.136
own words or to like make a little variation. It's like we've

31:05.160 --> 31:09.168
been trying trained to repeat the same sentences again and again. That's our governance

31:09.216 --> 31:12.952
systems all the time, always cookie cutter methods, right? This is how you do it.

31:13.048 --> 31:16.656
We have not learned to creatively write our own stories and that is because nobody

31:16.680 --> 31:20.384
has taught us the tools. Like it's, we really need to become

31:20.504 --> 31:24.288
literate in that very sense of understanding. What is governance? What's the decision making method?

31:24.336 --> 31:28.032
How do I decide who decides what, how do I do? All of how

31:28.048 --> 31:31.352
does information flow come in so that then people have these

31:31.408 --> 31:35.102
modular systems that they can then with that, with a

31:35.118 --> 31:38.230
dynamic balance tailored to the system that they want and that

31:38.262 --> 31:41.638
fits their purpose. But we need to know so much more in order

31:41.686 --> 31:45.782
to do that, I think. And to me, really connective power, the book was tend

31:45.798 --> 31:49.406
to throw that out there. But, you know, one thing that frustrated me a little

31:49.430 --> 31:53.038
bit about that is if you, for example, just look at a simple

31:53.126 --> 31:56.494
little data point again of just, there is no

31:56.534 --> 31:59.542
category for such a book. Like if you look at the bookstores and you have

31:59.558 --> 32:03.684
the different categories, you know, is this more like sociology? Is this management,

32:03.984 --> 32:07.016
is this self help? Like, where is this, you know,

32:07.040 --> 32:10.976
like this area of our life, of governance, of self governance

32:11.040 --> 32:14.080
doesn't have a place. It falls through the cracks everywhere.

32:14.112 --> 32:17.888
And that is one of the things I would really love to see change because

32:18.016 --> 32:21.968
we need it for literally everything we do together and we learn

32:22.056 --> 32:26.112
nothing about it. It's just not acceptable for me anymore. Yeah, I imagine

32:26.168 --> 32:29.672
50% of your entire time is educating, isn't it? And then

32:29.688 --> 32:33.474
you get to actually get into the meaty stuff as well. Exactly. And yeah,

32:33.514 --> 32:37.562
as I said, yeah. First educating on what is governance anyway.

32:37.658 --> 32:40.698
Okay. And now what is a way of doing governance? Okay.

32:40.786 --> 32:43.922
And now within that way of doing governance, how do you figure out on which

32:43.978 --> 32:47.194
end of, like on which side of things you want to be? I mean,

32:47.234 --> 32:50.854
yeah, we're doing three things at once, actually. There's a fourth thing, and that is

32:51.394 --> 32:54.602
dealing with people's upset and sadness about

32:54.778 --> 32:58.434
all the years that they spent in hierarchical situations because there's a

32:58.474 --> 33:02.248
lot that gets stirred up that people are. Yeah, they really, there's a

33:02.256 --> 33:05.480
lot of pain there. So we're dealing with the cleanup of that at the same

33:05.512 --> 33:09.392
time. Brilliant. So we touched earlier on the idea of power over and

33:09.408 --> 33:12.904
power under, and we talked a bit about people stepping up and taking responsibility,

33:12.984 --> 33:16.936
but the kind of flip of that is that people in kind of traditional leadership

33:16.960 --> 33:20.656
roles have to kind of step down and they have to give up

33:20.720 --> 33:23.928
some of that power. What's that transition like for a

33:23.936 --> 33:27.092
lot of the leaders that you work with? Yeah, most of

33:27.108 --> 33:30.564
them have already tried to give up power and

33:30.644 --> 33:34.252
are now and then notice that nobody's taking it. So they

33:34.308 --> 33:37.980
appreciate that a system is given to them by which they can make

33:38.012 --> 33:41.476
that. That bridge happen. So it's, you know,

33:41.500 --> 33:45.132
it's like passing a baton. If nobody catches it,

33:45.228 --> 33:49.180
then you can't give it to anybody. So power doesn't just float around.

33:49.332 --> 33:52.730
It typically ends up somewhere.

33:52.852 --> 33:56.510
So either you're still holding it or you've passed it on. You can't just let

33:56.542 --> 34:00.182
go of it. It's not like power just floats in space once you've let go

34:00.198 --> 34:03.726
of it. That's not typically how it works. It will. Somebody will claim it

34:03.750 --> 34:07.206
or nobody will claim it, and then it just is in action.

34:07.350 --> 34:09.518
So the stepping down,

34:09.686 --> 34:13.334
ironically, typically goes hand in hand with

34:13.454 --> 34:17.350
stepping up in the area of creating

34:17.382 --> 34:19.855
the clarity. So really,

34:19.919 --> 34:23.591
the leaders and organizations are then more the process

34:23.687 --> 34:27.159
leaders that need to figure out and say, okay, I'm going to

34:27.191 --> 34:30.363
give us a system so that we can do this together.

34:31.663 --> 34:34.223
And that comes with its own level of complications,

34:34.343 --> 34:37.615
because then we have often the reactions of people

34:37.679 --> 34:41.119
who have an adverse reaction to somebody giving them a system. Right.

34:41.151 --> 34:44.546
So if you already have a revolution going on, it's really hard to

34:44.610 --> 34:48.466
introduce a governance system because then everything is like an against or for

34:48.490 --> 34:51.866
an against kind of move. I've seen that many times as well. So,

34:51.890 --> 34:55.202
yeah, letting go of your own power, but stepping up in terms of building

34:55.258 --> 34:58.666
governance, that's the perfect combination, I think. Yeah, I think you talk

34:58.690 --> 35:02.386
about the fact that sometimes there's a hangover from how

35:02.410 --> 35:05.722
it used to be, and there's just sometimes when you work with organizations and

35:05.738 --> 35:09.258
you have to do the deep work and you talk about the drama triangle

35:09.426 --> 35:11.428
and some of that stuff, some of the stuff that we have to do,

35:11.436 --> 35:15.116
because these are sort of roles we naturally fall into. Do you feel that

35:15.140 --> 35:18.732
sort of that that's an essential part of people understanding the natural roles they play?

35:18.908 --> 35:22.028
Yes, and I think they. I mean, that's what I'm doing. Right. With the drama

35:22.076 --> 35:25.212
triangle and connecting it with the, the power over.

35:25.268 --> 35:29.220
Power under. Power within. So somebody who tends

35:29.292 --> 35:33.180
to just not do things like the power under behavior is

35:33.212 --> 35:36.544
really very much aligned with what intra drama triangle, classic drama

35:36.584 --> 35:40.192
triangles called victim stance. And then there's a perpetrator is

35:40.208 --> 35:43.504
kind of walking around blaming. Right. If somebody isn't doing anything,

35:43.584 --> 35:46.432
that's often overreach because you're in somebody else's business.

35:46.568 --> 35:50.000
And then the rescuer, the rescuer is such an underappreciated

35:50.032 --> 35:53.440
role. The people who walk around instead of actually

35:53.512 --> 35:56.856
helping people, they want to look great and play hero.

35:56.960 --> 36:00.272
Those, those are the ones that get to me the most, honestly, I always,

36:00.328 --> 36:04.406
I have a very sensitive censor inside myself to

36:04.510 --> 36:08.446
sniff out rescue behavior, so. But in a

36:08.470 --> 36:11.814
way, what we need is in,

36:11.854 --> 36:15.502
for example, giving ourselves, or if an organization or somebody

36:15.518 --> 36:18.766
in leadership wants to give the organization in a governance system,

36:18.910 --> 36:21.910
they need to do that without any of those energies.

36:21.982 --> 36:24.590
Right. It can't be like a victim of, you guys are mean to me.

36:24.622 --> 36:28.154
We now need a new governance method plan. You're not going to fly.

36:28.474 --> 36:32.082
You guys don't have your act together. You need a governance system, probably not going

36:32.098 --> 36:35.818
to fly. And even rescue behavior has too much toxicity

36:35.866 --> 36:39.938
attached to it. So it needs to be really a drama

36:40.026 --> 36:43.394
free coming together and deciding to step into a new paradigm.

36:43.434 --> 36:46.826
That's really the only way out that I found. Yeah. And we

36:46.850 --> 36:50.730
wanted to talk about just like the process of sort of implementing into organizations as

36:50.762 --> 36:54.194
well. One thing that many organizations are guilty of, whether they're moving

36:54.234 --> 36:58.074
to a matrix structure or whatever kind of structure they do, is they don't

36:58.114 --> 37:01.658
support the employees in that transition. They kind of make the move

37:01.826 --> 37:04.826
and then they leave them to it as well. And you kind of talk about

37:04.850 --> 37:08.410
the importance of actually supporting people through that and equipping them

37:08.482 --> 37:11.970
through that process as well. Is that something that you see that organizations

37:12.002 --> 37:15.234
often neglect their employees as they make that transition to that

37:15.274 --> 37:18.362
new model, and there's more that they can do, more that who could do it?

37:18.378 --> 37:22.072
The people. And the people who want to see their change.

37:22.218 --> 37:25.364
Yeah. So the people actually implementing the new model and thinking this is the silver

37:25.404 --> 37:29.692
bullet that's going to fix everything. Yeah. I mean, there's, yeah, there's just

37:29.748 --> 37:31.704
so much that needs to be done for that.

37:33.004 --> 37:37.004
One needs to basically hit some sort of perfect balance

37:37.124 --> 37:41.012
between everybody being well informed and being

37:41.068 --> 37:42.544
on board with this change.

37:44.044 --> 37:47.428
Top down implementations are being done. I'm not the biggest fan of it.

37:47.516 --> 37:51.036
So implementing sociocracy or implementing a system like sociocracy

37:51.180 --> 37:55.244
works the best when everybody is sort of already on board.

37:55.404 --> 37:59.060
There are a lot of catch twenty two s and chicken egg problems that one

37:59.092 --> 38:02.924
has to solve. So one of the classic ones that I keep running into

38:02.964 --> 38:06.988
and I don't have a great solution for is if people say,

38:07.036 --> 38:10.396
well, I don't know if I want to do sociocracy. First they have to learn

38:10.420 --> 38:13.076
what it is. And then you say, great, let's do a workshop. And then they

38:13.100 --> 38:15.932
say, yeah, but why would I do a workshop if I don't have, that's what

38:15.948 --> 38:19.234
we're using, and then I just want to bang my head against the wall.

38:19.394 --> 38:22.374
Tell me more. Yeah, exactly.

38:23.994 --> 38:27.154
In a way, one has to kind of inch one's way into

38:27.194 --> 38:30.410
it, right. Of like, well, here's an overview of sociopathy. Does that sound interesting?

38:30.442 --> 38:32.594
Yeah. I was like, okay, do you want to learn a little more? Yeah.

38:32.634 --> 38:36.490
Yeah. And then kind of start a little bit. But there unfortunately has

38:36.522 --> 38:39.882
to be a moment, and I'm pretty adamant about this, there has to be a

38:39.898 --> 38:43.106
moment where you step in with both feet and say, this is now what we're

38:43.130 --> 38:47.050
doing. Because it is a paradigm shift. You switch switching to a trust and shared

38:47.082 --> 38:50.154
responsibility model. You need to be all in on that one.

38:50.274 --> 38:53.522
So there's a lot of inching in and then there is a leap eventually

38:53.578 --> 38:56.890
that needs to happen. And a lot of interesting pieces around that

38:56.922 --> 39:01.094
are, you know, what do you do with maybe the pain from your previous system?

39:01.714 --> 39:05.386
What do you do with who has the power to decide that, what your

39:05.410 --> 39:08.962
governance system is? All of those need

39:09.058 --> 39:12.314
answers. And there is no perfect way of doing it because in a way,

39:12.394 --> 39:15.434
there is no clean shift from one paradigm to another.

39:15.514 --> 39:18.532
You completely, you're completely shifting.

39:18.668 --> 39:22.584
So you can kind of make your way there in a,

39:23.084 --> 39:26.516
in a way that's as clean as possible, but there's no perfect way.

39:26.660 --> 39:30.644
It's always a little bit muddy, honestly. Yeah. And I think William Bridges in his

39:30.684 --> 39:33.924
book managing transitions talks about that when you go for a change process, it surfaces

39:34.004 --> 39:37.692
a lot of things for a lot of people, doesn't it? Like all the ghosts

39:37.708 --> 39:41.292
of changes past and their life come up. So presents itself as

39:41.308 --> 39:44.460
an opportunity, but we can't, and we can't overlook that, can, we've got, we've got

39:44.492 --> 39:47.708
to lean into it and give people the space to work through it. And I

39:47.716 --> 39:51.070
guess that's one of the founding principles of sociocracy, is equivalence, isn't it?

39:51.102 --> 39:54.606
And it's making sure that people have opportunity to talk about the change and

39:54.630 --> 39:57.814
they've got a chance to sort of share what their feelings are as well.

39:57.974 --> 40:01.246
Right. And all of that same, same kind of balance as

40:01.270 --> 40:04.622
the kind of balance polarities that we've run into,

40:04.798 --> 40:08.206
all of that within an approach like it has to be to an

40:08.230 --> 40:12.174
appropriate extent. Right. You can't, you know, because we're not

40:12.214 --> 40:15.436
going to press pause on our organization, do group therapy for

40:15.460 --> 40:19.436
two years. So, yes, all of that needs a space. But there's also

40:19.540 --> 40:22.956
like, you, you won't heal fully. Right. It's kind

40:22.980 --> 40:26.524
of like healed enough, you know, that you can, that you can step

40:26.564 --> 40:29.892
into a system. So the, enough principle here applies as well. We don't have

40:29.948 --> 40:33.332
to be perfect. We just, yeah, we just need to hold it

40:33.348 --> 40:36.844
together enough that we can, that we can function in new

40:36.884 --> 40:40.348
system. And of course, there's also plenty of healing that still happens along the way.

40:40.436 --> 40:43.756
But that transition moment really is a pivotal moment.

40:43.900 --> 40:47.664
I really like that. Healed enough. There's a real, yeah, there's a,

40:47.964 --> 40:51.236
there's a real pragmatism to this, isn't there? It's, I think sometimes

40:51.260 --> 40:54.484
the myth might be that this is very idealistic, but it's, it's hugely

40:54.524 --> 40:57.660
practical, isn't it? Oh, yes. So, yes, so it's

40:57.692 --> 41:01.260
so pragmatic. I mean, really, in a way, pragmatism is

41:01.412 --> 41:04.940
the one big, the one big thing about it. So it's just

41:04.972 --> 41:08.930
like this whole enough principle. Like one other example

41:08.962 --> 41:12.450
and I mentioned, I'm pretty sure I'm mentioning it somewhere, there's the question of

41:12.482 --> 41:16.734
connected enough in our when do we know each other enough as human beings

41:17.034 --> 41:21.066
so that we can work together? There's just

41:21.130 --> 41:24.890
so many different aspects of where one could be spending time,

41:24.962 --> 41:27.738
which I'm sure would be beneficial,

41:27.866 --> 41:31.682
but we're also doing something, and it has this clear bias fraction

41:31.738 --> 41:35.124
sociocracy that I really, really like of. Because there is enough

41:35.204 --> 41:38.572
to do what, you know, enough for what? Well, enough in

41:38.588 --> 41:41.844
order to do the things that you said you would do. So that is always

41:41.924 --> 41:44.708
what it goes back to of what are you doing? The question I was going

41:44.716 --> 41:48.116
to ask, though, kind of just going from a kind of myth around sociocracy

41:48.140 --> 41:51.468
is around its application in profit making organizations. So a

41:51.476 --> 41:55.820
lot of the examples early on were around cooperatives and charities and nonprofits.

41:55.972 --> 42:00.344
But it's being applied in organizations that have a profit making purpose,

42:00.464 --> 42:03.440
and they're all about kind of shareholder value potentially.

42:03.632 --> 42:06.736
That for me, is a really interesting shift. And how does that, how does that

42:06.760 --> 42:10.552
change the dynamic, or does it, when you apply in an organization in

42:10.568 --> 42:14.080
that context? Yeah, that's one of the big questions.

42:14.232 --> 42:18.416
How will that continue? Because right now,

42:18.560 --> 42:21.964
honestly, typically what happens is that those

42:22.704 --> 42:25.800
for profits that use sociologist end up changing,

42:25.832 --> 42:28.920
changing their ownership models. Interesting. So right

42:28.952 --> 42:32.000
now, it's actually them budging that way, you know, because.

42:32.152 --> 42:35.512
Because how can you argue, I mean, once you're in a

42:35.528 --> 42:39.272
shared power system, why would you like, how could you argue that some people

42:39.328 --> 42:42.728
are gonna make more money, more money than others?

42:42.776 --> 42:45.640
It just, it just doesn't add up so well. Or they find, you know,

42:45.672 --> 42:49.284
any kind of ownership model, like, whatever it might be. There's just so many options

42:50.744 --> 42:53.554
of, of shared ownership.

42:54.134 --> 42:57.766
But, yeah, I just, I really, I'm starting to

42:57.790 --> 43:01.766
get more cautious about my predictions of where that will go. I think

43:01.870 --> 43:05.554
the most compatible sociocracy is with systems.

43:05.854 --> 43:09.470
Let me say, actually, let me quote the Jared Edinburgh,

43:09.502 --> 43:12.714
who brought, put the sociocratic soccer method together.

43:13.014 --> 43:16.790
He said that the idea of a sociocratic

43:16.822 --> 43:20.814
organization is an organization that owns itself. So the whole

43:20.854 --> 43:24.590
concept, like, really, an organization cannot be owned and should not

43:24.622 --> 43:28.750
be for profit in the first place, because. Because it is a social

43:28.822 --> 43:31.854
system. It's more like a commons. Right. It's a social system that,

43:31.974 --> 43:35.806
that we build together. You can't. Yeah. You can't

43:35.830 --> 43:39.422
really own it. So they're different. Yeah. I wonder, you know, I wonder,

43:39.478 --> 43:43.030
will we find containers in which we can kind of sworn it into

43:43.062 --> 43:46.830
our current system, or will the system have to, have to give

43:46.862 --> 43:50.294
away here? I have no idea. I'm guessing all of it will happen to some

43:50.334 --> 43:53.710
extent, but where it's gonna go, we'll see in the next 15 years or so.

43:53.822 --> 43:55.794
Feels like there may be another book coming.

43:56.894 --> 44:00.526
Yeah, yeah, that one. That one,

44:00.550 --> 44:03.830
yes. I mean, there is, there is the big question of how does

44:03.862 --> 44:07.406
sociocracy contribute to, like, an even bigger shift? I mean,

44:07.470 --> 44:10.394
the things that we've talked about are already big shifts. Right.

44:10.974 --> 44:15.050
But what does a society look like with systems like sociology,

44:15.122 --> 44:18.690
other predominant systems? That's, that's just so hard

44:18.722 --> 44:22.082
to imagine. Even I'm, you might have seen at the end

44:22.098 --> 44:25.570
of the book, I'm doing like, a little fictional part of, like, what would it

44:25.602 --> 44:28.962
be like? But I had to work so hard to even

44:29.018 --> 44:32.250
think my way there. And I basically, you know, I basically spent my day

44:32.282 --> 44:35.482
in these kind of systems. You know, like, I live in

44:35.498 --> 44:38.866
a sociographic organization, I work in a sociocratic organization, and even

44:38.930 --> 44:42.360
I don't have the capacity, like the, I don't know, a level of

44:42.392 --> 44:45.896
imagination to think my way into a world that is

44:45.920 --> 44:49.044
how we operate. It was the hardest part to write.

44:50.104 --> 44:53.864
Yeah. So to some extent I was then wondering and with like,

44:54.024 --> 44:57.544
yeah, how much is that also a crisis of imagination. Like we can't

44:57.584 --> 45:01.376
even imagine a way without power over like we can't imagine a society

45:01.440 --> 45:04.760
like that. Same with the economic distribution.

45:04.832 --> 45:08.122
So that's, I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with that.

45:08.248 --> 45:12.022
Brilliant. Well, Ted, first one say a huge thank you for pushing. We know

45:12.038 --> 45:15.286
you've got really heavy cold. You still push through

45:15.390 --> 45:19.222
even just like you really ill. And you've answered all of our many questions

45:19.398 --> 45:22.326
for those people that are really looking for a book that's kind of sort of

45:22.350 --> 45:26.126
going to challenge your thinking, the paradigms, and really like as you go through

45:26.150 --> 45:29.118
it, start to really make you think differently about the organizations that you have it

45:29.126 --> 45:31.638
in. And it's a really good book and we're going to put the link in

45:31.646 --> 45:35.296
the show notes if you want to connect to it. Sociocracy for

45:35.320 --> 45:38.776
all also does training courses. So what kind of things does sociocracy

45:38.800 --> 45:42.624
for all do? And how can people actually sign up to them? Yeah,

45:42.664 --> 45:46.604
so sociocracyforall.org is sociocracy. For all's website.

45:47.024 --> 45:50.684
There's a lot of training, different languages as well.

45:51.744 --> 45:56.448
We also can connect people to consultants

45:56.536 --> 45:59.760
that have done these shifts with other organizations.

45:59.792 --> 46:03.222
It helps to have seen some of the good and bad and the ugly before,

46:03.318 --> 46:06.462
so that one is not as easily phased by it. Yeah.

46:06.478 --> 46:09.758
And as for training, I want to emphasize that I find it

46:09.806 --> 46:13.486
really important that, that people get to know

46:13.510 --> 46:16.838
all the different parts because they really do belong together. You know, there's consent,

46:16.886 --> 46:20.782
decision making. That's great. It's useful on its own, but it's the best

46:20.838 --> 46:23.782
if we use it in small groups. Small groups you get if you nest and

46:23.798 --> 46:27.038
blink and so on. So all of this is really in a live system.

46:27.086 --> 46:30.576
It's like a plant needs, you know, oil, not oil,

46:30.720 --> 46:33.456
soil and water and sun.

46:33.520 --> 46:36.640
So in the same way, an organization needs all the different parts.

46:36.752 --> 46:40.448
So make sure to get a little bit of a sense of all of them.

46:40.576 --> 46:44.320
And then of course, meeting facilitation is a big piece that many people look at

46:44.352 --> 46:47.488
because that's where it comes to life, but it really depends on all the different

46:47.536 --> 46:50.936
parts. Brilliant. Well, thank you so much, Ted. We'd love to have you back

46:50.960 --> 46:54.152
on it for any future books that you do as well. And again, thank you

46:54.168 --> 46:57.208
again for your time so much. And brilliant. Thanks very much.

46:57.336 --> 46:57.704
Thank you.