I made a very long post about How to manage power and responsibility in a collaborative group.
In that post I tried to limit myself as much as possible to reporting what I know about it, based on the books that I have read. In this one I would like to offer my personal view on the way forward.
I personally see three issues where we could try to do things differently to re-balance power and responsibility, all of which are linked to more talking.
1. Making more space to dissect objections
A first issue I see is an observation from Ted Rauâs book âCollective Powerâ, which surprised me by the amount of time and energy some groups invest in objections. Examples include âI object because he touches his glasses too muchâ and âare you sure you are consening, because your âconsentâ didnât really sound genuineâ. This is something we are missing out on a bit in The Reef, mostly because ⌠we are only half-sociocratic. Itâs easy to unearth and dissect objections in a circle of five people, but in a plenary meeting with 15 people it becomes a bit more difficult.
One way of solving this, which is also suggested in the book, is to spread decisions over several meetings. This way everybody gets the chance to reflect, and in The Reefâs context it should also be possible to meet up in a small group with the people who feel strongly about the proposal on the table. Maybe something for @reef-governance to have a look at?
2. Making more space for feedback and accountability
In a collaborative group, we take away the âpower-overâ that provides the central steer and control. Power and responsibility are thus distributed, but that doesnât mean they should go unchecked. What sociocracy suggests is to do regular circle and performance reviews, and also that the circle leader provides accountability in a power-with way to the members of the circle.
Beyond that, I also think there is something to learn from what âMany Voices One Songâ says about internalised patterns of inequality (p. 244):
Consent is not a guarantee for shared power. There are always power dynamics: priviliges of all kinds are either on the the surface or very close to it. We all carry our experience of power. Most people, especially those who have had less-than-average access to privilige, carry internalised powerlessness. It is hard to work through that and impossible to just âstrip it offâ. We can start noticing it. For example, there are circle members who, in a round, will add preambles or postscripts to their contributions: âwell, I do not know, my ideas are always not as good as yours,â or âyeah, thatâs just what I think, this was probably not useful for you.â
A combination of awarness, communication skills and practicing equivalence can do a lot. If we hear circle members making their own contribution small, we often speak up and let know how we appreciate their contributions. That is probably not going to change their internalized patterns immediately but it might be a step toward awareness.
The opposite is true as well. If we notice that someone is speaking with a sense of superiority, it might be useful to bring it up. Some people are not aware of it and might be grateful for that to be brought to their attention. In general, we find that most people want to talk with a sense of equivalence but they lack the awareness or skills to do so.
Sociocracy requires people to claim their power. Sociocracy does not address internalized experiences of privilege! A way to address that is by doing personal work on awareness and privilege and power. What sociocracy does is to provide a space so everyone can speak as equals. Rounds are crucial here because rounds embody the sense of everyoneâs voice mattering. As we get to know each other more, stereotypes and power-over / power-under patterns recede.
3. Making more space to talk about appreciation and frustration
Feedback and accountability are also the expected counter-balance for informal power. In a healthy group, feedback can and is given, so that nobody needs to feel frustrated, and nobody needs to worry about whether other people are frustrated. One thing we could do here is walk the talk, and invest more time and energy in NVC practice sessions. If there is an interest for that, Iâd be happy to take that on. Another thing we could do, is use the Full Member dinners as moments of genuine connection, where we are all invited to speak our hearts?
