Ted Rau on running organisations as equals with Sociocracy

Lisa: So Ted, first of all maybe it would be really useful for listeners who either don’t know what sociocracy is or they’re not super clear, maybe you could say just a few sentences about what sociocracy is?

Ted: Yes, so sociocracy is a governance system. It’s a combination of tools and processes that make it easier and more inclusive to run an organization. We really want to run an organization as equals, so that’s the assumption. Authority is distributed in teams that we call circles, so it’s not a centralized form of power but distributed.

Another thing that comes with sociocracy is the decision-making method, which is consent. That means that a decision is made when nobody has an objection. So just by changing that question a little bit from consensus where we ask, “Is this what you want?” we ask, “Is there any reason not to do this?” And this creates a slight bias towards yes, so that groups are more likely to experiment.

Sociocracy also has feedback loops baked into the system to create a learning organization. And one little thing, instead of the trademark and feature is that we use rounds whenever we talk, to make sure that we’re all on the same page and that everybody has been heard, even on that micro level of how we have conversations.

Lisa: Thank you. I also often find people, when they read a little bit about sociocracy, are surprised to learn that it dates quite far back, like it has quite a long history. Where did sociocracy come from?

Ted: Yes, so the term has been around for a long time. Then it was picked up by somebody who started a Quaker school, and they had some of the elements already. But one of the students there, Gerard Endenburg, then grew up and inherited an electronic parts company, and he used some of the pieces that he learned as a child and added the cybernetics feedback loops and a few other things. He really put it together in the 80s.

So even though the term is older and some elements are of course older in the general culture—many things like rounds, it’s not a thing that is owned by sociocracy—but really the way it’s been used now is the way it was assembled by Gerard Endenburg and used since the 80s, which for self-management is fairly old.

Lisa: And what about Sociocracy For All, this organization that you’re part of? What is Sociocracy For All and how did you join it?

Ted: So I joined it by co-founding it. The idea behind Sociocracy For All was that we were a little tired of the approach that had been used, that is to share sociocracy as a consultancy, because we saw it as something bigger than that. We saw it as social change work. So we didn’t want only corporations or larger organizations that had the budget to be able to access it, but really everybody. That doesn’t mean only the affordable side of things, but really everybody.

Another thing that fed into it was that we wanted sociocracy and all the tools that come with it to be a common good. We think it can’t really be owned because it’s something that’s like a commons. So the first phase of Sociocracy For All, we worked on getting resources out so people can have a choice about how they govern themselves. Because many people don’t even know that there are options, they just do what they learned growing up, and they don’t even know there are different ways of doing it.

That cycle of people just doing what they learned themselves, we wanted to break by giving people resources, access to resources so they could be more informed. So we co-founded it, I think two and a half years ago, so in 2016. Jerry and Gonzales and then very quickly turned it into a membership organization. We now have 60-something, or almost 70—it changes all the time—70 members right now.

Lisa: What was it about sociocracy that appealed to you personally? How did you come across it and what was the attraction?

Ted: I always joke that I’m a native speaker of sociocracy because I didn’t learn it through a workshop, I learned it by being part of an organization and just experiencing it. Like a child learns through immersion, I learned through immersion. At first, I think the first official workshop that I was a part of was one where I co-taught already.

I had one lightbulb moment that I go back to around sociocracy, and that was attending meetings. We all have sort of a cultural understanding of what meetings are like—they’re a big drag, long, annoying, typically long-winded. So that’s what I assumed it would be. And I remember doing a checkout, and the way I remember it is it was one of those moments where you say something and in that moment you realized it’s true. And what I said was, “Okay, I’m leaving this meeting more connected to you and more refreshed than I came.” And I thought, “Hmm, that’s not what you would expect from a meeting. That’s really good.”

I started paying attention to how things were done. It was fairly new in that organization; that organization had just transitioned from consensus to consent in sociocracy itself. So people were still sort of trying it out. Then I started reading the book with the people. That was really the only book at that point. And then I got involved with the people here who are carrying it.

Lisa: You described that—like, one of the surprising factors of leaving a meeting and not feeling like your soul had died or something, as so many of us have experienced—what would you say are the other advantages of sociocracy? If I’m working in an organization, what would it make possible for me?

Ted: It gives us a chance—like, on a higher level, it gives us a chance to work together in integrity. It’s funny because sometimes it’s hard to say it in positive terms. It’s easier to say it in negative terms. So, struggling to say it in positive terms, “integrity” is one of the terms that work for me.

You know, it is not being interrupted, not feeling slightly out of your center because we have a visceral sense of when integrity is lacking. So it is a way of moving forward as a group without having to dismiss anything, so you can actually hear each other and really work together and be equals in every moment.

In general, what sociocracy as a governance method is, is that it’s open access, it’s driving-tested as I say it, it’s fairly old so it has matured quite a bit. It’s very flexible. We have sort of a shortcut—if it’s dogmatic, it’s not sociocracy, because it’s all about balance. We’re all balancing all the time. For example, balancing group versus individual, balancing forward motion versus consideration and going slow, balancing giving authority to groups while wanting to stay in the loop. So it’s all about balance. Dogmatic things are not balanced, and that’s what for me is the key thing—it’s the balance, flow, integrity. Those are the positive terms that I would put on it.

The advantage of sociocracy really is that it’s a good starting point because you can be specific. There’s something concrete you can do, like rounds, like sociocratic elections, like consent process. It’s all—if you want it out of the box, you can take it out of the box, but it’s also very tailorable from there.

Lisa: I really like that because I think a lot of people nowadays confuse sociocracy with holacracy, which is kind of like sociocracy’s better-marketed, slicker cousin or something. And I think a lot of people are turned off by holacracy because it is quite dogmatic in my experience. Like, Brian Robertson says if you just take bits and pieces of holacracy then it’s not holacracy, and you have to sort of sign the Constitution in its entirety. Whereas my experience of sociocracy is, as you say, a lot less dogmatic and a lot more balanced and flexible. It’s sort of operating model agnostic almost. Would you agree?

Ted: Yes, that’s—you know, that’s always a both-and answer. When I teach workshops, I often make this running joke of having three pre-made answers, and they’ll say typically, you know, 90% of my answers are going to be one of the three. One is “it depends,” the other one is “both,” and the third one is “give feedback.” That applies here.

So really, I also understand Brian Robertson when he says, “If you don’t take it all, it’s not gonna work,” because there’s some truth to that too. For example, if you only use consent but you do it in a group of fifty because you don’t dare giving groups authority and really splitting up into smaller groups and distributing power, then consent doesn’t work as effectively.

So there is, you know, it’s both true at the same time that I want people to experiment and have their own experience and tailor it to whatever they need. And it’s just as true to say, “I really encourage you to do it all because I really see how all the pieces fit together in a way that they mutually reinforce each other.”

So both. I guess the only thing I can do, since it’s not my business to tell people what to do, is to say that, you know, it’s like—how about you start with something and try to stay as true as possible to how it comes out of the box? And yet of course you have to think for yourself. Nobody’s gonna punish you if you do something else.

But I guess where I’m going with this is that I’m trying to see the need under protecting something like holacracy. I completely understand, I think, why—in my projection, I have a sense of—yes, it makes sense to specify the system and to protect it as something that is consistent and coherent, while sociocracy is more open. And that makes it also harder for people to dive into it. So whatever people need, I guess.

Another thing is—and that’s my bias—I would say holacracy is sociocracy just in a highly specified way. So for me this is part of sociocracy; it’s just a special version of it.

Lisa: I think that the value, from what I’ve heard in conversations with different people, is that it’s kind of scary to go from a traditional hierarchical top-down structure and step into nothing. So there’s something about sociocracy or holacracy or any of these systems that are to some extent pre-designed that helps kind of hold people a little bit. So there’s something that you’re stepping into, and then I like what you’re saying about, you know, experiment with it, try it out in full to really get a true sense of it, I guess, and then see what makes sense to adapt or evolve based on your particular needs or circumstances?

Ted: The ultimate measure is: does it work for you? Is it effective? Does it give you what you want? If for any reason—it would be hard for me to believe, but if for any reason rounds don’t work for your group and they really don’t give you that sense of being on the same page and inclusiveness, you know, that’s not easy to say, but then don’t do it. Or if it works for you to do pilot rounds and partly what people call “free flow,” that’s fine. The measure is: does it give you what you want?

But one piece about that is that we need to be honest with ourselves, because sometimes we do things and we’re not really honest with ourselves. For example, if people reinvent structure and just go into that nothing and try to invent it themselves, then they might actually compromise on the effectiveness. They might do things that would have served them better to use something pre-defined to start with.

So I’m always torn about this. I guess I’m just being transparent about sort of being pulled into two directions. And I guess the sweet spot is somewhere in a dynamic middle, you know—sometimes airing on this side and sometimes earning more on that side, and being honest with yourself about how it plays out.

Lisa: One of the things I’m—a question I’m holding is that on the one hand, I can see that something like sociocracy might help shift a culture, a way of being together, our mindset even about each other and how we work and how authority works, by working at a level of habits and rituals. And on the other hand, I’m wondering if it’s still possible to import old ways of being. Could you end up with someone who is still sort of tyrannical or dominant even in a circle situation? Or does sociocracy have any allowances for that? Does it address that in any way, or does that need to be something else that you kind of complement sociocracy with?

Ted: That’s such a big, rich question. I guess first of all, we always combine. We know sociocracy for us is just one of the puzzle pieces. There’s so many puzzle pieces that are similar in different domains. For example, nonviolent communication, the whole NVC work, and permaculture, social permaculture. There are very many pieces and they all add something to the whole thing. Because ultimately what we’re after is culture change in how we relate to each other and to the world around us.

If we operate from a position of thinking that we hold absolute truth, then we can use sociocracy against each other. And that happens. That is not unheard of, and it’s the saddest thing for me to witness because it’s hard for me to believe that that is compatible with sociocracy how I hold it. And yet I see it happen.

I guess that goes back to the dogmatism, right? It needs the inner work to notice when you’re in a dogmatic place and then to back off. Someone recently taught me—I don’t know where he had it from, to be honest, I wish I could quote it correctly—but I love the idea of before you say something, ask yourself: are you wanting to be wrong? That is, for me, in the spirit of sociocracy.

For example, if I do a round about “Did we co-create a proposal?” then I don’t have to be the one who knows, because it’ll come out as a collective thing. And that is a relief, at the same time as it is also very humbling. So there’s both in here too.

I see people not step into their power completely. So there’s the two frames that I hold—power-over and power-under. People who come from a power-over plane, what they need is feedback. But if you have a power-over kind of person or behavior paired with people with power-under behavior, then they both carry the same responsibilities, and that is 100%.

Because the people who could object—because they have the power, nominally they have the power in sociocracy to object—they choose not to object and say, “Well, you know, so-and-so was doing his power-over thing again.” Like, no, you could have objected, you were choosing not to take the power that you have. So this is both—something to serve up. Some people have to learn to share, but it’s actually hard for both sides.

And holding responsibility 100% for whatever happens, that is a huge step, and that’s where we all need work. Because I’m assuming—or I’m pretty certain about it—that most of us did not grow up and get socialized in that way.

One short way of saying that—I’ve heard somebody saying, their summary was, “Oh, that basically means sociocracy means no more excuses.” No more excuses. If somebody does a power-over thing, that’s not an excuse. You can object, you can do something, you can give feedback. If you choose not to step in your power—or you know, if people complain, “Well, you know, they don’t really want the responsibility, and so I’m…”—that’s how the other side complains about the people who are in power-over in victim patterns. They also have to address that.

To me, the comparison that comes up for me is the following: somebody called the book “300 pages of common sense,” and he said, “Well, unfortunately it’s common sense that we seem to have to be told in order to take it in again.” I found that interesting because it’s true, it is common sense. And it’s a little bit like, how are you a good friend? That’s something that we’re supposed to know. And if you wrote a 300-page manual about how to be a good friend, you would have to go into quite some level of detail, and yet it would all be common sense.

But just imagine someone does not know how to be a good friend. They could take that manual and still get it wrong, you know, even if they just went through the motions. So there is, I guess, a limit to what one can do. One can offer the processes and offer the tools and offer how it could sound, and yet there’s a limit because people still have to shift into that mindset.

Lisa: I really agree with that. I think it was Margaret Wheatley who said something like, “We haven’t learned how to be in relationship with each other in this new way,” which seems kind of crazy. And people often say to me, “Oh well, we know how to be autonomous and self-managing in our own lives. Why do we need to learn how to do it in organizations?” But it’s funny that in that different context, it is just so unfamiliar to us. And I think, highlighting on what you were saying as well, actually we also haven’t really learned how to be this way as parents many of us, or as friends as you say, as partners. Often we have those power-over, power-under things going on there too. So it’s really interesting.

Ted: For me, the biggest learning that prepared me for sociocracy was being in a relationship with somebody who was an NVC (nonviolent communication) trainer. The “no more excuses” kind of slogan applied there, and I learned it. It was painful to learn, but whenever I was doing a power-under thing or rebellion or whatever it is, I was called on it.

So that makes you learn. It was so painful and very tearful actually, because it was taking my breath away, like, “I can’t do this.” It was like, “Oh, that’s an excuse again.” Of course, many iterations of me just going, “I can’t.” “It’s okay, I’ll try again, I’ll try again, I’ll try again.” And of course we still slip, but that’s what prepared me. Because that’s exactly what we need in relating to each other in organizations, in systems like sociocracy.

It is coming like shaking up the dust and training again of, “Okay, how do we relate to each other as equals?” Because if you think of it as a balance between power-over and power-under, to use that as shortcuts, then being in balance is a very small, it’s a very narrow place to be in. And typically it will even be a dynamic place, shifting a little to this side, to the other side. So it’s not something we inhabit very easily; we have to watch out.

It’s a little bit like—this is a good image that works for me—I don’t know if they have that in Europe, but here in the US we have a rough part in the asphalt on the road that wakes you up when you get to that side of the road. A little bit like that. “Oh, and now I’m leaning too far on the power-under side.” We go back to the middle. “Oh, now I’ve been too assertive here, now let me do a round and hear what the others are thinking.” So constantly steering and trying to stay in that sweet spot where it feels funny and—that’s the game.

Lisa: I was reading Stowe Boyd’s newsletter this week, and he was quoting this article that was saying about leaders saying that “change is hard” and, you know, this myth that 70% of change initiatives fail that’s actually apparently never been proven, which I didn’t know until I read that. And this article was saying, “Yeah, change is hard, but let’s not let that discourage us from doing it. It’s worth doing, right? And most things worth doing are hard, and most learning worth doing is painful.”

Ted: Yes, especially because, what’s the alternative? The way I look at it is, we spend so much time in places where governance is needed. That starts with family, like parenting, family systems in general, and organizations, workplaces, associations, neighborhoods. We spend so much time, and if that time is spent in a disconnected place and not in integrity, it’s not as enjoyable. So that’s the advantage—there’s so much advantage to trying it that, to me, there’s really no other option.

Lisa: I wanted to talk about some of the sort of shadow sides of sociocracy. I mean, with every system or approach, there’s always shadow sides or blind spots to be mindful of. And one of them that came to mind was someone was telling me the other week that they’ve noticed that in their team, they’ve realized that people who have the skill to put forward really well-crafted proposals, or just are people who have a tendency to put proposals forward first or more regularly, tend to have more influence and power. And she wondered if there was like a bias there, like if there’s some kind of status or power accumulation if you’re particularly good at putting together proposals or sharing them with the group in a sort of compelling, convincing way. What are your thoughts on some of the shadow sides of sociocracy and how can we kind of watch out for them?

Ted: One aspect of that is, yes, I agree. It also has a slight bias to people who are quick on their feet, because if you, for example, are speaking in a round when it’s your turn, it’s good if you have something to say. Some people like to sit with something longer than just a one-hour meeting. So that’s something I see.

There’s certainly—and we’re very aware of that—there is a class bias in how confidently you’re able to express yourself. So yes, all of those biases. And then on the other hand, that’s the work we all have to do. So if we have a meeting or evaluation and we see that that is a pattern, we can say, “So-and-so brought a proposal again,” and we can say, “You know, I love that you bring those proposals. You really seem to have a genuine interest in moving things forward, and I love how you can express yourself so elaborately. I was also observing that two or three people here don’t seem to have that capacity, and I wonder how we can make that happen to hear more from them.”

That would be a way of not going to the blame-y kind of, “Oh, you know, this is bias and there’s nothing we can do about it.” Now the question is: how do we work with it? And how can we, for example, build a helping circle with somebody who tends to not put so many proposals out and somebody else, and have them team up and work something out together?

That’s the “no more excuses.” Yes, there is a slight bias, and how can we work with it? Because obviously that bias is just as present in other forms of governance. In democracy, it’s not only how elaborately you can express yourself, but also how well you can do the other stuff that gets rewarded. So this is not unique to certain systems like sociocracy, and I’m inviting groups to work with it instead of complaining about it.

There is one other thing, one shadow side that I see, and that sort of goes back to what we said about the shift in mindset. I am very concerned when people try to do it without training, sort of they’re like, “Oh yeah, I think I get it,” and then go do it. Because there’s a lot to be said about it—details matter a lot. And it’s very easy to then sort of run a superficial form of it, and that concerns me. Because then I’m worried about the pieces not fitting together well, then I’m worried about the mindset that’s underneath it, then I’m worried about details that can, especially if they align with biases in society, then we can run into trouble.

For example, if you implement in a top-down way and you have very mixed people from mixed class backgrounds, and the, say, middle-class person implements top-down and does not offer enough training for the others, I’m worried about them being able to be in the system in a way that they can be heard. Because they might not fully understand it and need to be given access to training to fully express themselves in that new system.

So superficial implementations in general concern me, and that’s one downside of being so open and flexible. We’re not protecting it, so we’re just sort of crossing our fingers that people use it in a way that it was intended. But we have no control over it, so that’s concerning to me.

Lisa: It’s interesting what you say about implementing it top-down, because to me it’s always a sort of strange paradox. If an organization is, for example, interested in being self-managing, to introduce that shift in a top-down way—how would you, what sort of advice or tips would you give to people in organizations if they are interested in introducing sociocracy? What is the kind of good way to do that, would you say?

Ted: If you really look at it, the paradox—that’s exactly what I’m getting at. It is a paradox. If you think about it just in logical terms, it’s probably impossible to ever implement sociocracy, because who would decide that, right? And that’s hard.

So how we go about it and what we recommend to groups is that typically there’s one or two people within an organization that catch the bug, and they really want to do something like that. And for them to just make that circle a little wider till they have a solid group. And the other piece of advice that I give is that they stay in conversation with everybody else and treat all the concerns that they hear from other people like objections, so they already operate and practice in a system that they want.

You can’t, for example, vote autocratically to implement sociocracy and kick everybody out who doesn’t want it, or outnumber the people who don’t want it. Then you would start the whole thing on the wrong foot. So the way we’ve seen it work well is with what we call an implementation circle or implementation team. And I know this is also something Frederick Laloux proposed—to have your team of allies in your organization.

And that’s also where our role comes in. We’re often the coach for that group. That’s our most favorite way of working. I don’t like being in the role of a consultant; I much rather be in the role of a coach for the people who are doing it themselves in their own organization. That’s the most comfortable place for me, and that’s also how it can work. Because when we say it can’t be implemented top-down, that’s true. Yet it can also not be implemented bottom-up. It has to be both. So there has to be a both-and, and it has to somehow work its way in for all the levels.

Lisa: You’ve just published the kind of sociocracy handbook, “Many Voices One Song,” which I love and is super helpful. I think I’ve heard a lot of people say, “Oh, this is exactly what I needed. Now it’s sort of kind of making sense to me.” What is the vision for Sociocracy For All now? Like, what are you looking to in the future?

Ted: Sociocracy For All really has those three aims. One is what I said—what we started out with—and it’s the access to resources. The book, of course, is part of that effort. The second is more community organizing for people who want more companionship. They are implementation circles, consultants, coaches, and so on. Also exchange within sectors. For example, we have one group that focuses on sociocracy in co-ops or in permaculture and so on. And the third aim is training and support of training.

So in our assessment right now, giving people access to resources, that first aim, is what we pretty much covered by the book. The book is a download of what we know. There is still some curating to do, but that really covers a lot of it. So the two things that we’re focusing on more right now is the aim number two and three: the community organizing of people side—and we do a lot of that in strengthening, solidifying our own organization and membership piece of it. And the other thing is the training and support of training.

That’s something that I’m very focused on right now because, to me, especially in that model of an implementation circle, to coach implementations are a focus for really making it work for people. Because just throwing a book at people is not enough. There are people who can just read a book and self-implement, which I find endlessly admirable, but many ask for a little bit of hand-holding.

We’re now launching in January what we call the Sociocracy Academy. The idea is to have a combination for people of more learning, online classes, learning from people who have more experience, having a mentor or a coach depending on what serves you best, and communities of practice to really get those processes in and let them become second nature.

Overall, the vision is to just get all the experience really into the room so that it can be shared more easily, because it’s still very spread out over the whole globe—people who do it, people who’ve been teaching it, and so on. Get it all closer together so that we can exchange information and share skills more easily.

The audience for that program, for the Academy, are trainers, consultants who are going to add sociocracy or similar systems to their portfolio, and people who are part of implementation circles. So they have just a little bit of extra help, the coaching and the advanced learning and communities of practice, to implement in their organization.

Lisa: And what is your personal mission in all of this? Like, what would you like to see in the world?

Ted: Well, you know, I live in the US, so the first thing that comes to mind is just the divisiveness and the divide between people. That’s tiring and it’s sad. That is a level of disconnect. And I always operate from the assumption that we’re closer than we think; we just have a hard time hearing it. And that narrative needs to change.

For me, that’s changing society, in sociocracy, as part of changing organizations, one organization at a time. Another judgment I have, and this is really a judgment and I’m aware of that, is that the left has shot itself in the foot for years because they have this caution around structure. And we get the reaction from the right of “What, sociocracy? Is that socialism?” And the other side is “Cracy? That’s just another system that puts people into boxes.”

For some people, absence of structure, the thing—yeah, struggling just means that you’re doing it right. And it’s just not something I buy into. I think we can use systems to our advantage if we create and use systems that help us be better human beings. That’s what I’m looking for.

So that is my personal mission: finding systems that help me be a better human being. For me, that’s nonviolent communication and all those systems. Sociocracy really helps me relate to people the way I want to, because we can’t run an organization on good intentions. I know that because we will fail too often. So having a system in place will help us perform the way we would like to perform all the time more often. That’s what I’m trying to do.

Lisa: Wow, yeah, I sign up to that. That sounds great. On that note, as you look out at the landscape of work at the moment, what are your thoughts? Do you feel like things are shifting? Do you feel—I guess I’m saying do you feel optimistic or pessimistic about the way things are going?

Ted: Both at the same time. Both moments. I guess the only smart thing I have to say here is that I put a lot of hope in just a generational shift, because I see people younger than me going for better work conditions more than they go for higher pay—more than people in my generation and older. So they’re really looking for a job that gives them purpose.

And I hope that we get to some critical mass at some point where that’s just what people expect, and that they will be honestly shocked at how workplaces are treating their people sometimes. So that we get to a point that what now is still at the fringes is going to be the new normal.

Same in schools. That’s why I know you’re interested in education, and that’s something we’ve talked about. If we have a way, both in parenting and also in schools, to show kids how they could be treated, they’re not gonna go out in the workforce and be treated the way people are treated so often. So I guess what I’m hoping for is that we get to that shift of second nature, new normal, that it’s just the expectation.

Lisa: Thank you so much, Ted.