This is an awesome article that describes the why and what we are doing on the Socialware/Social Technology side of the equation. It is the best introduction to the whys and overview of Sociocracy that I have seen to date.
Any true governance geek will have a response to this. I hope people take the time to read and share what it brings for them.
A few parts I’d like to call out that will hopefully entice others to actually do the reading, about 1500 words, and share their response as well.
I love this quote, although most don’t have the background to take it in. Since I participated in the Sanghas, (communities,) of a couple of Non-Dual teachers for a decade, it read as spot on for me.
Successful navigation of the uncharted climate change and sociopolitical territory before us requires that we embrace uncertainty, unlearn much of what we think we already know about our world, and embody the understanding of non-dual reality.
Another great quote, that I think we all can relate to:
Organizations that are up to 21st-century challenges mimic complex, adaptive living systems and decentralize authority. Their interconnected constituent elements self-organize and change relationships among themselves fluidly in order to easily adapt to environmental changes. Participants don’t execute decisions made by superiors in a hierarchical chain of command. They tap into their own creativity, adapt, and make adjustments that further the organization’s: purpose.
Excellent way of framing the need for this and how this ties together. It reinforces why I am putting my time into the Orca ecosystem, as this is the socialware that we need to join with the trustware that SL is building.
Thick document with A LOT of big ideas, @aia - thanks for sharing!
I’m a neophyte here so WAY over my skis and wondering if there are practical things - principles, practices, etc. - included in the article that members of Orca Protocol / Gov-Naut pod would comment on in more detail. Looks like several community members appreciate the contents which begs the question: perhaps the article could be a reference document and serve as a mirror to hold up during a look-back session? For example, if productivity were measured, as the article suggests, in terms of the group “making tensions explicit and establishing processes that use them as fuel for innovation and evolutionary change,” how are we doing?
A couple other thoughts:
Intrigued by the list of Outcomes and the counterintuitive assumption that a governance process could “increase capacity to effectively handle accelerated uncertainty.” Anyone experienced this?
For me, as a newbie, WRT transparency (4th bullet in Practices): I agree that transparency is essential, however between Discord and Notion, I’m having difficulty parsing all of the data that this principle / practice begets.
Hey @holster, I really appreciate you taking the time to participate in the forum as a regular Member. It is not common. Hat tip! And second hat tip for actually sharing your own notes on the article. That gift of transparency is seen and appreciated.
I appreciate your comments as well.
TBH, we’re building so much as fast as possible to be ready for Public Beta later this year, (hopefully that is the time frame,) that doing a deeper dive into this material as a community has not really happened yet.
I love your call out about actively using the measure of Productivity. I can’t say we are measuring it, but I can say that anecdotally tensions, although uncomfortable, tensions have been appreciated here over all, and been significant pivot points in the communities emergent self consciousness and organization.
We are at another one of those inflection points right now around what is our community Value Statement. We can no longer assume we are all on the same page there, and navigating the tension of that is forcing us to come to agreement on what we stand for and believe as a community about the how we do things, not simply the goal or purpose.
Organizations are living super-organisms with a consciousness of their own; they reflect emergent properties in the natural world and can be best described as product of biomimicry.
From my understanding, effective organizations should reach a state of equilibrium to overcome entropy and fulfill their purpose. It’s not so obvious what a state of equilibrium looks like; we intuitively feel when something is right and when something is wrong and use this “heart-based” ad hoc reasoning to determine whether or not we are progressing, making sense of, and actualizing our values.
I think we should not retrofit governance processes that emphasized community sentiment within a binary dialectic. Instead, we should focus on exploring new systems of governance within these emergent networks that may otherwise not have been applicable/possible outside of them. I myself am experimenting with this “heart-based” ad hoc reasoning when activating my will or agency within an organization and look to connect to the heart of each community I choose to participate in.
I am interested to know, too. @aia if you have any reference please do post it here in the forum! I can keep this in mind until I come across anything worth a share.
I do not, but can you define “highly adversarial or competitive environments,” in more detail? If that includes general business environments all Holocractic organizations meet your criteria.
Sorry I missed this earlier, I think I saw Pupil’s reply, and totally missed yours at the time. @estmcmxci response to you made me aware of it. (TY ser! )
I think the real issue you are addressing ultimately, is community boundary definitions and trust. Who’s in, or out, reasonably, and how much do those who feel they are “in” feel they can trust others that are “in”. That’s why there has to be authentic alignment not only on Aims and Domains, (Mission and Vision,) but also on values, amongst those who are “in.” Without the latter trust is really hard, or simply non-existant.
The concept is easy to express, and much harder to implement.
It has to be lived and felt, which can’t be taught, but is learned. I think this is exactly why she states, “and embody the understanding of non-dual reality.”
It’s not a how you “do”, but a how you “be,” first with yourself and from there with your experience of not self. Spiritual practices, are called “practices,” for good reason.
I am so happy you are fully in the “experiment” of what I see as a signficant inflection point for all of humanity. By over focusing with the mind, and its tendency to reductionism, I think a lot of people miss the real opportunity these times and circumstances are presenting.
DAOs are not just the new form of “business” structures. The CBDCs, and regulations, and normies coming witll bring that anyways, simply because the underlying tech is more efficient for commerce.
DAOs done well and with the openness to your “product of biomimicry” thesis, and empowering the periphery while still maintaining the efficiency of hierarchy for information distribution, exactly as plant and animal biology do, are an extraordinary opportunity for human social organization.
Civilization as currently defined only recognizes Command and Control hiearchies as “civilized.” When what we really want anyways is a Cordialization. We are already living how uncivil, civil society becomes when commerce is its primary guide vs a truly felt ethic in society.