In Patio we are using Consent decision-making by default.
In some situations, we might decide to use Consensus, Majority, or Autonomy, but this needs to be communicated explicitly.
Here is the main difference between the approaches:
-
Consent Decision Making: This approach focuses on identifying and resolving any objections to a proposed decision, aiming for an outcome that's "good enough for now" and "safe enough to try", rather than seeking total agreement.
-
Consensus Decision Making: In this method, all participants collaboratively develop, agree on, and are satisfied with a decision, ensuring that everyone's opinions are considered.
-
Majority Decision-Making: This form of decision-making follows a voting system where the choice gaining more than half of the votes becomes the selected decision.
-
Аutonomy Decision-Making: In this style, decisions are made by a single person or a select few without the input of others, typically reflecting the preferences or judgment of the individuals in power.
We choose consent as the most appropriate default method because it means that the decision is presented to the entire community and all have access to engaging in the decision. We don't explicitly wait for each of the community members to contribute and vote.
Consent does not insist on everyone's involvement in all decisions, but requires sufficient transparency and creating a space where the entire community can get familiar with the process that was followed to reach a decision. It promotes a culture that appreciates dissenting opinions and assigns decision-making supremacy to sound, reasoned arguments over individuals or groups. This principle distinguishes between opinions or preferences and valid objections, using the latter as a tool for learning and improvement. It aims for a decision that is good enough for the time being, considering potential improvements for the future.
In the process, 5 main rounds are covered:
-
Present a proposal
-
Clarifying Questions
-
Reactions
-
Amend the proposal
-
Voting
Each round has a timeline defined by the creator of the proposal (facilitator) within the participant should engage accordingly.
Who participates in the round?
Facilitator of the proposal.
One person is responsible for presenting a proposal to the group. This proposal might be an outcome of shared discussions in circles and groups but whoever creates the proposal is becoming the facilitator of the proposal.
What does it mean to be a facilitator of a decision-making process proposal?
-
The facilitator starts the proposal and provides as many details as you have
-
The facilitator answers all the questions or comments connected to the proposal. All the community members are also invited to join the discussion
-
The facilitator is responsible for hearing everyone's voice and creating summaries and outcomes of the discussions. If needed, gather volunteers to co-facilitate
-
The facilitator makes sure the timelines of the decision process are fulfilled
What proposal means:
It presents a problem and a proposal that solves that specific problem.
Who participates in the round?
The entire community including the facilitator
All community members can ask clarifying questions about the problem of the proposal. Refrain from judgment about the proposal at this stage. The idea is to just ask questions that clarify the proposed solution.
If any participant is unsure or lacks full support for the proposal due to a lack of understanding, now is the opportune moment to raise questions. Seek as much clarity as required to thoroughly comprehend the proposal. If objections arise - which are always welcome - it's vital to initiate a discussion about them. This way, in subsequent rounds, the community can collaboratively address these concerns and strive to reach a common ground. The process is designed to ensure that everyone's perspective is considered in the decision-making, fostering a truly cooperative environment.
Who participates in the round?
The entire community including the facilitator, who will aim to make a summary of the reactions
Everyone can give reactions to the proposal. What do you like, what you don't like, and what do you think should be improved if you have suggestions for improvement. Everyone can react, but the facilitator shouldn't engage in conversations or brainstorming sessions.
If there are objections, now is the time for people to raise them. They should be specific, not subjective. Also, an alternative should be provided to the objection.
How to validate if your objection is not subjective:
In Sociocratic Consent Decision-Making, objections are considered valid if they meet the following criteria:
-
Justifiable: The objection should be based on a rational concern rather than a personal preference. It should demonstrate how the proposal could harm the community or prevent it from achieving its mission.
-
Relevant to the Group’s Shared Aim: The objection should relate directly to the group's shared aim. If it doesn't, it may not be considered valid for the group’s decision-making process.
-
Testable: The objection should be specific and measurable. It should suggest a clear way to test whether the issue it raises is indeed a problem and whether the proposed solution works.
-
Immediate: The objection should address a concern that is relevant in the present or the immediate future. It should not be based on hypotheticals or potential issues that may or may not arise in the distant future.
Please note that in sociocracy, objections are not seen as hurdles but as opportunities to improve the proposal and make it work for everyone. An objection isn't meant to stop a proposal but to adapt it so that it aligns with everyone's needs and concerns.
This checklist can be used to validate objections in a sociocratic decision-making process. However, the discussion and interpretation of these criteria should be made respectfully and deliberately, considering the perspectives and feelings of all participants.
Please read the section “How to deal with objections”. If after the debates about the objection the group decides that it makes sense to amend the proposal
Here's a clearer version of the steps to follow if an objection arises in the Reactions round:
-
Initiate the Reactions round: Begin the round where participants share their reactions to the proposal.
-
Raise an Objection: If a community member has an objection, they share it. This objection should meet the agreed-upon criteria, i.e., it isn't merely subjective but is based on valid concerns relevant to the group's shared aim.
-
Present an Alternative: The person objecting should propose an alternative solution to address their concern in the context of the original proposal.
-
Discuss the Objection: All community members then debate and discuss the relevance and potential impact of the objection.
-
Incorporate the Objection into the Proposal: If, after discussion, the group consensus is that the objection is valid and should be considered, the facilitator summarizes the revised proposal. This new proposal incorporates the suggestion made in the objection and triggers another round of questions and reactions.
-
Move to the Voting Round: Once both the question and reaction rounds have been completed, the group proceeds toward the voting round to finalize the decision on the revised proposal.
This way, all community members have their thoughts and concerns addressed, ensuring a democratic, thoughtful, and inclusive decision-making process.
Who participates in the round?
Only the facilitator
Based on all reactions the facilitator can choose to amend the proposal.
Who participates in the round?
Everyone
Here is the moment when we vote.
An objection is an argument that reveals consequences or risks for the community or team. To consider if your objection is valid ask yourself if the proposed solution is "good enough for now and safe enough to try" Don't withhold objections, because they should be considered a gift to the group and by withholding them you can harm the community or individuals in the company.
-
Raise Concerns Together With Explicit and Practical Alternatives or Adjustments. This way, it is easier for everyone to understand the objection and incorporate it into the proposal to improve or enrich it.
-
Encourage the Expression of Objections: Foster an environment where raising objections is seen as constructive rather than disruptive.
-
Listen and Understand: Make sure each objection is heard, understood, and recorded. This encourages transparency and shows that all perspectives are valued.
-
Examine Objections: Determine if the objections are based on valid concerns or simply personal preferences. Only act on objections that reveal potential undesirable consequences or worthwhile improvements.
-
Discuss and Seek Solutions: Involve the team in finding solutions to the issues raised in the objections. This could involve modifying the original decision, providing additional information or context, or finding a completely new solution that addresses the objection.
-
Resolve Objections: Changes should be made to proposals or decisions in ways that address the objections raised.
-
Review and Learn: Treat every objection as a learning opportunity. Use the experience to refine future decision-making processes and avoid similar objections in the future.
Until Patio chooses an instrument that will be used for decision-making, we use the General channel to create a proposal for decision. This is a temporary solution before we dedicate software or just a separate channel where all the decisions will be gathered.
Please use the title: [Number of the proposal] Proposal for Decision Making [Name of your proposal]
In the proposal announce the timeline for each round and initiate the rounds in the tread of your proposal.
Please invite everyone to use the tread of the proposal for all the discussions.
Once we transit to an instrument for decision-making or another channel, detailed instructions will be presented.
Thank you for being part of the process! ❤️