Creative Forces of Self Organization

THE CREATIVE FORCES
OF SELF-ORGANIZATION
By
JOHN A. BUCK
and
GERARD ENDENBURG
Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Why Empower Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction to the Defning Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
First Example: A Hairdressing Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Second Example: An Alternate Idea in a Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
New Corporate Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Benefts of Self-organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Systems Theory and Dynamic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Selected Bibliography and Related Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
List of Figures
Figure 1 The Defning Elements of Dynamic governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2 Format of a Dynamic governance Circle Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 3 Template for Dynamic governance Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 4 Dynamic governance Ballot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 5 Template for Making Policy Decisions by Consent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 6 Electrical Companys Functional Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 7 Electrical Companys Dynamic Circle Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 8 The Classic Corporate Model Uses Majority Vote
and Autocratic Decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 9 The Classic Corporate Model with Union Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 10 Classic Corporate Model with Employee Stockowner
Feedback Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 11 Dynamic governance Circle Functions: Leading-Doing-Measuring 18
Figure 12 Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of
Dynamic governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Copyright 2010 Sociocratic Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
Original article published in 2004. Revised 2006, 2010.
Copyright 2010, Sociocratic Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands www.governancealive.com 800-870-2092
The Creative Forces Of Sel f-Organi zati on 3
Introduction
Consider a group of workers. If they act
jointly under the direction of a leader to
produce a product or service, we consider
their behavior organized. If they act as a team
without external orders, we would consider
them self-organized.
People self-organize all the time. Business
associates create partnerships, children invent
games, students organize elaborate pranks,
and employees take the initiative in handling
an unusual problem during a supervisors
absence. In another organization, employees
invent a subtle, collective way to resist an
unpopular supervisory policy.
We have tried with only moderate success to
understand the self-organizing phenomena
from the standpoint of behavioral psychology,
military science, management science, and
even operations research. Recent discoveries
in systems theory, however, are giving
new, clearer insights into self-organizing,
insights that offer both managers and staff
powerful new tools to increase productivity.
Remarkably, they could implement these
with simple additions to currently existing
organizational structures.
In this article, we will present a genuinely new
method of organizing work and governing
organizations and then discuss its principles
and some of its methods in more detail. This
new methods technical name is sociocracy but
in the businesses and organizations that use
it, is also known under other names including
dynamic governance, nonviolent governance,
and green governance. In this paper we will
use primarily dynamic governance because it
is more familiar than sociocracy and it also
refers to a basic concept in systems theory,
feedback loops.
This overview will frst introduce a few
key concepts that include consent decision-
making and double-linked hierarchies. Then,
after presenting two simulated examples
from dynamically governed organizations,
we will discuss dynamic governance methods
in more detail and contrast them with more
familiar forms of management. Finally,
well summarize some of the mathematical
and systems theory concepts related to this
innovative management strategy.
Dynamic governance, or sociocracy, is a
decision-making and governance method
that allows an organization to manage itself
as an organic whole. To make this possible,
dynamic governance enables every sub-part
of the organization to have an authoritative
voice in the management of the organization.
In contrast, modern corporations are
considered to be legal persons with rights
equivalent to those of a person, but the
exercise of those corporate rights is the sole
authority and responsibility of a majority of
the board of directors, not the organization
as a whole or even the board of directors as
a whole. To demonstrate the uniqueness of
dynamic governance and the development of
the ideas that lead to its development, we will
briefy discuss previous efforts to empower
workers in the workplace.
Why Empower Workers?
The word sociocracy was frst used by
August Comte, an early nineteenth century
French philosopher best known for a system
of thought and organization known as
Positivism that he hoped would provide the
basis for a stable society in the emerging
industrial revolution. Comte established
the science of sociology that provided the
basis for his theory of sociocracy. Although
Comte proposed a body of social scientists
800-870-2092 www.governancealive.com Copyright 2010, Sociocratic Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
4 The Creative Forces Of Sel f-Organi zati on
to replace the monarchy, the meaning of the
word sociocracy is literally rule by the socios,
people who have a social relationship with
each other. In contrast, a democracy is rule
by the demos, the general mass of people who
may have little in common. Comte, however,
was unable to suggest a practical structure for
sociocracy.
In the 1800s, John Stuart Mill advocated
worker cooperatives in which the workers
controlled all equity and selected their own
management, the beginning of the cooperative
movement that has had some limited success.
In the 1920s, a pioneering management
scientist Mary Parker Follett noted that in the
most productive companies workers strongly
identifed with the organization as their
company, allowing them to focus without
conficting feelings. She discerned, however,
that no structure existed that allowed such
identifcation to be founded on anything other
than a diffcult-to-maintain illusion. The
basis of a new structure emerged with later
in the 20th century with the notable thinking
of Norbert Wiener, who founded cybernetics;
John Forbes Nash, the mathematician whose
life was portrayed in the movie A Beautiful
Mind; and Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel laureate
who did pioneering work in self-organizing
systems. Their insights formed the basis
for dynamic governance, which supports
workers, managers and investors in focusing
together on a common aim.
Dynamic governance theory continues to
grow by incorporating new scientifc insights.
For example, 21st Century mathematical
modeling of decision-making behavior by
focks of birds and schools of fsh, and new
observations of bee swarms is of particular
interest because some of the underlying
concepts such as changes in zone of alignment
seem applicable to human self-organizing
behavior as well.
Beginning shortly after World War II,
American educator and social psychologist,
Rensis Likert, integrated empirical social
science research into a concept called System
4. His ideas, which both promote upward
feedback and recognize the importance of
hierarchies, have been very infuential in
management theory. Highly respected in Japan,
a number of recent American plant start-ups,
particularly joint ventures with Japanese frms,
have been patterned on System 4 concepts.
Before he died in 1981, Likert was beginning
to articulate ideas for System 5 that vested
greater managerial authority in the workers.
Professor Robert Ackoff of the Wharton
School of Business suggested a similar idea
in the early 1980s. He suggested a scheme for
the establishment of a corporations long range
planning by using multi-staged majority vote
of management and workers.
More recently, futurist John Naisbitt
popularized the concepts of participatory
corporations, networking as an alternative
to traditional hierarchical organizations, and
intrapreneurship, acting like an entrepreneur
but within a corporation. Naisbitt and other
writers seem to refect a general societal mood
that reaffrms basic capitalist values while
pushing for a broader base in the management
of our businesses and institutions. Legislation
passed over the last few decades that promotes
employee ownership refects this mood. In
Leading the Revolution, Gary Hamel makes
a strong case for involving everyone in an
organization when developing new business
strategies. In mid-2004 American Airlines
announced a proftable quarter after teetering
on bankruptcy for two years. Why? Their
new CEO, Gerard Arpey, found ways to
involve the workers and unions in developing
innovative and proftable business strategies.
The research and experiences of these theorists
and business leaders, however, were still
lacking a system or structure that would ensure
both worker commitment and proftability.
Cultivating an environment that consistently
maximized the potential of an investor-
manager-worker partnership remained in the
hands of a few gifted managers. In the late
20th century in his electrical engineering frm
in the Netherlands, Gerard Endenburg began
developing such a structure. Endenburg had
studied with Dutch Quaker and progressive
educator Kees Boeke, who had worked
internationally to promote peace through
education. In 1926, Boeke founded a school
in which he developed the practical principles
of sociocracy and applied them by having
the students and teachers govern the school.
Endenburg developed these principles and
applied them in his company to prove that
a business could not only function with
workers assuming responsibility for the
policy decisions that affected their work, but
that it was more proftable to do so. In 1981,
Endenburg began to publish his theories
and to apply his method in other businesses.
The methods and principles of dynamic
governance solve the problem of organizing
sustainable and holistic worker empowerment
while a the same time ensuring management
control and protecting the interests of
investors. It has now been used successfully
for decades in many organizations in The
Netherlands as diverse as an electrical
contracting company, a municipal police
department, a Buddhist monastery, a nursing
home, a chain of hairdressing shops, a local
public school system, and numerous others. It
is also being used in a variety of organizations
in other European countries, Latin America,
Australia, and the United States and Canada.
In research studies, organizations using
dynamic governance are reporting increased
innovation, productivity increases of up
30% and 40%, reduction in the number of
meetings, decreases in sick leave, and higher
staff commitment to the organization.
Both workers and managers like working
in dynamically organized companies. Quite
simply, businesses and organizations are
easier to guide and seem to have an unusual
capacity for initiative, self-regeneration,
and repair. The method is operating well
in organizations of up to 1800 people and
substantially larger organizations are applying
it on a limited basis.
Although Endenburg developed the dynamic
governance methodology without direct
knowledge of Likerts work, it has several
striking similarities to his System 4 and 5
ideas. These similarities are remarkable if
one considers that dynamic governance,
based on applied systems theory, relies very
little on the social psychology theories used
by Likert. Dynamic governance is also quite
unlike the management concepts underlying
quality circles, socio-technical analysis,
organizational development, cooperatives,
and employee stock ownership plans. While
it applies the best fnancial and business
management practices, it focuses on
modifying or rewiring the autocratic power
structure that is the backbone of modern
organizations, whether proft or nonproft.
Introduction to the Defning
Elements
The dynamic governance method relies
on four critical components derived
from the science of cybernetics, including
systems theory, fractal concepts, and the
phenomenon of self-organization. The four
defning elements are quite simple, and once
understood, are easy to follow. Any company
or organization can implement them without
changing its existing organizational structure.
Once in place they provide a fexible means
to develop that structure. Figure 1 lists the
defning elements and gives brief defnitions.
Dynamic governance provides specifc
structures and procedures for implementing
and maintaining these defning elements,
much the same as Roberts Rules of Order guides
the majority-vote decision processes. We will
illustrate these procedures with two detailed
examples based on actual companies. The
frst example focuses on the consent, election,
and circle components. The second example
illustrates the double-linking component.
The Defning
Elements
Consent The principle of consent governs
decision-making. Consent means no argued and
paramount objection. In other words, a policy
decision can only be made if nobody has a
reasoned and paramount objection to it. Day-
to-day decisions dont require consent, but there
must be consent about the use of other forms
of decision-making.
Election of Persons Election of persons for
functions and/or tasks takes place in accordance
with the principle of consent and after open
argumentation.
Circle The organization maintains a structure
for decision-making, consisting of semi-
autonomous circles (i.e., groups of individuals).
Each circle has its own aim and organizes
the three functions of leading, doing, and
measuring/feedback. A circle makes its own
policy decisions by consent, maintains its own
memory system, and develops itself through
research, teaching, and learning that interacts
with its aim. A circle makes consent decisions
only in specially formatted circle meetings.
Double Linking - A circle is connected to
the next higher circle with a double link. This
means that at least two persons, one being the
functional leader of the circle and at least one
representative from the circle, are full members
of the next higher circle.
Figure 1: The Defining Elements
of Dynamic Governance
Right after closing time, the staff of a
hairdressing shop gathered for a circle
meeting. The shop was part of a growing,
dynamically organized franchise company.
Nine of the ten full-time workers and one
part-time person were present and ringed the
room.
It had been six weeks since the last meeting.
Donna, an experienced stylist and regular
facilitator of the meeting, followed the
dynamic governance format for a circle
meeting. (See Figure 2). Starting with an
opening round, she asked each person in turn
to say briefy how they were doing and, if
they wished, to make any comments on the
agenda. As each person spoke, bringing him
or herself into the meeting, there were nods,
some good-natured laughter, and a few clucks
of sympathy. The opening round complete,
Donna dealt with administrative matters. She
asked if everyone had received a copy of
the decisions made in the previous meeting.
Susan, an apprentice, said shed forgotten
hers, and Charles, a stylist and secretary of
the circle meetings, handed her an extra copy.
The circle was experienced in consent
decision-making and handled its proceedings
with deceptive informality. Donna watched
them scan the list of decisions and after
seeing several nods said, Since no one seems
to have a problem with the minutes, lets go
on to the agenda. As all of you know, Im
getting a promotion and will be managing
the new shop opening over by the lake (some
good natured cheers erupt); so, we need to
elect a new circle chair. Second, several of you
mentioned that youre concerned about our
competitors salon thats opening in the other
wing of this shopping center. The only other
The Order of
a Dynamically
Governed Meeting
A. Opening round a time to attune like an
orchestra just before the concert.
B. Administrative concerns such as
announcements, time available for the
meeting, consent to minutes of last meeting,
date of next meeting, acceptance of the
agenda.
C. Content
Agenda item
Second agenda item
Etc.
D. Closing round a time to measure the
meeting process e.g., use of time, did the
facilitator maintain equivalence, how could
the decision-making could have been more
effcient, did everyone arrive prepared.
Also, this is a time to mention agenda items
that should be on the agenda for the next
meeting.
Figure 2: Format of a Dynamic
governance Circle Meeting
agenda item I have is Mildreds request to talk
about coverage of our shop on Sundays.
Mildred, the manager, supervised the shop
and presided over routine weekly staff
meetings, but, by the circles choice, she did
not chair the circle meetings.
Again, no one voiced any objections, and
Donna started into the content part of the
meeting. She introduced the frst agenda
item by saying, Now then, lets proceed with
First Example: A Hairdressing Shop
Addressing the frst step, Review Role, she said,
Well be electing the person for a one-year
term. The duties are to prepare for and lead
our circle meetings. As everyone seemed
satisfed with this short description of the job,
she continued to the second step. Charles,
would you please hand out the Ballots? Figure
4 shows a typical dynamic governance ballot.
Dynamic Governance
Elections Process
1. Review Role: Describe
responsibilities, qualifcations, and
term.
2. Nomination forms: Fill out
nomination forms giving your name
and the name of the person you
nominate and give to election leader.
3. Explanations round: Each person
says why they made their nomination.
4. Change round: Election leader asks
each person if they want to change
their nomination based on the
arguments they heard in the previous
round.
5. Consent round: Election leader
proposes the candidate with the
strongest arguments and asks each
person if he or she has a paramount
objection to the proposed candidate,
asking the proposed candidate last.
If there is an objection, the election
leader leads the group in resolving
the objection and initiates another
consent round.
Figure 3: Template for Dynamic
governance Elections
I, ____________________________
(Your Name)
NOMINATE:
(Name of Candidate)
Figure 4: Dynamic
governance Ballot
Each member of the circle took a few
moments to fll out his or her ballot and then
handed it to Donna. Proceeding with the
third step, Donna picked up the frst ballot
from the stack and reading it said, Linda,
you nominated John. Would you give your
reasons for choosing him? Linda gave a
short explanation. Donna asked the next
person and continued reading the ballots until
everyone had presented his or her nominee
and reasons for the nominations. Some
gave arguments for John and others spoke
in favor of Mildred, Joyce, or Charles. This
Explanations Round highlighted the positive
qualities of each nominee.
selecting a new circle facilitator to replace me.
She then proceeded to follow the template for
conducting dynamic governance elections.
Figure 3 is of the process for elections.
After everyone had given an initial opinion
without discussion, Donna asked if anyone
wanted to Change their vote based on what
theyd heard, the fourth step. Two people
said that they liked the reasons given for
Charles, including a person who had objected
to him in an earlier election based on his
inexperience. (This self-organized movement
toward Charles occurs frequently in dynamic
governance elections.)
Based on the strength of the arguments for
Charles, Donna proposed him for the job
and she initiated a Consent Round, asking each
person in turn, Do you have any objection to
Charles as the new chair? She asked Charles
last. As no one objected, she announced that
the circle had selected Charles. Donna paused
for a moment, as everyone in the room seemed
to experience a moment of quiet satisfaction
at the completed election.
Decision-Making Process
1. Consent to the issue(s) to be decided (Whats the picture?)
2. Generate a proposal (Whats our approach?) Often a person or persons may be asked to prepare
a draft proposal and circulate it for comment and revision before the next meeting.
3. Consent to the proposal (Whats our decision?)
a. Present proposal
b. Clarifying round clarifying questions only
c. Quick reaction round quick feedback about the proposal; as appropriate, tune proposal
based on the quick reactions.
d. Consent round if objections, record on a fip chart without dialog until the round is
completed; if necessary, amend proposal and repeat consent round. (If amendments are not
obvious, a dialog may be initiated until potential amendments begin to emerge.)
Figure 5: Template for Making Policy
Decisions by Consent.
Charles suggested that Donna chair the
rest of the meeting, and she moved on to
the next topic on the agenda. Following
the template for making policy decisions
by consent, Figure 5, Donna asked Michele
to give her report. (Step 1) In the previous
meeting, circle members had been very
concerned about a competitors new styling
shop that would be opening in another part
of the shopping center It had asked Michele,
a stylist and the shops elected representative
to their franchising company, to investigate
and propose (Step 2) what they should do to
handle the new competition. Michele said
shed spoken with the franchising companys
main offce and to a number of other people
and it seemed that the competition was
coming in because their own shop had so
many customers. The new shop would try to
take their customers by offering manicures,
and other extra services free, at least for the
time being. She proposed (Step 3a) that their
shop offer special promotions for the frst
few months after the other store opened and
that they talk with their customers about
what new services they might like to have.
After some clarifying questions (Step 3b),
Donna asked for quick reactions (Step 3c) to
Micheles proposal. Most felt it was a good
idea, and some asked how much the special
sales promotions would cost. Donna asked
Michele if she wanted to amend her proposal
based on the quick reactions.
Michele thought for a moment and said, I
imagine the advertising and specials will
be pretty expensive, and Im not sure how
expensive. But, it is really important that we
keep as many customers as we can during
the other stores big opening extravaganza.
So, I will add to my proposal that we
authorize Mildred to spend up to 20% of our
expected profts over the next three months
on advertising and special promotions. She
can tell us if she needs even more money
than that. Michele glanced at Mildred, the
shop manager, to try to gauge her reaction.
The others were quiet a moment as they
considered the effect on their own monthly
proft-sharing payments.
Donna broke the silence saying, Alright lets
see if we have consent for Micheles proposal.
She did a consent round (Step 3d), asking
each person in turn whether they had any
paramount objection to Micheles proposal.
To Micheles surprise, no one had an objection
to the money part of her proposal, but Charles
objected because he felt it wouldnt give them
enough information about the services of the
other shop, what they were really offering
and their quality, and a way to react quickly
if there was some new gimmick. In a way it
left them blind, that was why his objection
was paramount. Donna summarized Charles
objection on a fip chart and continued the
round without further discussion.
In the end, Charles had the only objection.
Donna initiated a dialog focused on Charles
objection by asking Charles if wanted to
elaborate further. Well, he said, We dont
have any way to research or learn from them.
What are they doing better? What are they
not doing as well.
Several other people made comments. After
a bit, Donna saw that a strategy was starting
to take shape (self-organizing). She cut off
the dialog and said, So, were saying that
in addition to Micheles proposal, we want
Mildred to organize an on-going effort to
check out the other shop. Each of us will take
turns going to the other shop as customers
to make our professional assessments of
what they are doing. Mildred will get other
people to go, too, who will talk to their other
customers to fnd out what they think and
why they are going there rather than here.
Well get training or change our advertising
depending what we fnd. Donna did another
consent round, and this time no one had any
objections. The decision was made.
Donna then moved to the third topic,
coverage of the shop on Sunday afternoons
an unpopular time to work. In its previous
meeting the circle had created a new
assignment schedule after intense dialog.
Mildred reported that she had received no
complaints so far except her own: namely,
the new schedule was diffcult for her to
manage. To keep dissension at a minimum,
the circle had closely limited her authority
to modify the schedule unilaterally. She said
she now objected to those tight reins because
the schedule was unworkable without more
latitude. She described the changes she
wanted. As no one seemed against the idea of
giving more fexibility or inclined to discuss
it extensively, Donna skipped the steps of
asking for questions and quick reactions and
simply asked for consent. There were no
objections.
Donna concluded the meeting with a closing
round (Figure 2, Step D) in which she asked
each person for a short evaluation of the
meeting without discussion. The meeting
then broke up after running for an hour and
ffteen minutes.
This hairdressing shop example illustrates
the dynamic circle meeting format and
the consent decision-making processes
for electing people and for making policy
decisions. It also alludes to the fourth
defning element, double linking, when it
mentions Micheles role as representative to
the franchises regional general management
circle. Double-linking (Figure 1) in
particular sets dynamic governance apart
from other management strategies. It allows
organizations larger than a single circle to use
consent decision-making holistically, greatly
improving upward feedback and facilitating
managerial delegation.
What the example doesnt illustrate is the
dynamic engineering of the shops work.
There are other templates that help a circle
articulate its own aim; organize itself using
the three functions of leading, doing, and
measuring/feedback; maintain its own
memory system; and develop itself through
integral research, teaching, and learning.
(Figure 1) Dynamic engineering is a bit like
industrial engineering except that, unlike
traditional industrial engineering, control of
the work process is in everyones hands. The
result is that every person has the chance to
be an entrepreneur in his or her own domain
of responsibility.
The second example, based on a real-life
event, illustrates the defning element of
double linking.
Second Example: An Alternate
Idea in a Crisis
Gloom reigned among the more than
one hundred members of a company that
manufactures and installs heavy-duty
electrical equipment. A local shipyard had
suddenly shut down, unable to keep up with
foreign competition. The shipyard accounted
for almost all of the Boat Departments
business.
Figure 6 shows the Boat Departments place
in the companys day-to-day functional
structure, simplifed for illustration. In this
fgure, each department box represents a
single manager in the management structure
with the exception of the Board, which
contains several people.
Fortunately, however, the company was a
governed dynamically. Every four to six
weeks all the departments meet in the policy
decision-making structure shown in Figure 7
to adjust the policies that govern their work.
Unlike the boxes in Figure 6, that represent
the daytoday operational structure, the
triangles in the bottom row of Figure 7 include
the department supervisor plus everyone
reporting directly to that supervisor.
Triangles are used in the diagram to represent
the three functions, leadingdoing
measuring, that create the dynamic circular
process. The groups of people and their
meetings are referred to as circles and circle
meetings because they are implementing this
circular process.
The General Circle in Figure 7 includes the
CEO plus the four supervisors reporting to
the CEO plus a representative elected by each
department, nine people in all. The left hash
mark at the top of each triangle represents
an elected representative and the right hash
mark represents the functional supervisor.
The hash marks at the top of the Board
Circle represent board members who are
outside experts. Because each circle connects
to the next higher circle through two people,
the supervisor and an elected representative,
the circles are double-linked. This feature is
Board
CEO
Admin
Department
Manager
Building
Department
Manager
Boat
Department
Manager
Assembly
Department
Manager
Figure 6: Electrical Companys Functional Structure
unique to the dynamic governance method
and creates a circular feedback process
between the two circles, the functional leader
reporting down and the representative up.
Returning to the crisis, when word came of
the shipyard closure, the Board Circle held
an emergency meeting and decided to begin
a layoff of most of the Boat Department.
When the Board announced its decision,
Max, one of the electricians in the Assembly
Department, asked Henry, the Assembly
Circle secretary, to call a special meeting of
the Assembly Department Circle. The layoff
did not immediately affect him, but he had an
idea about another solution. Henry arranged
a meeting and when everyone had gathered,
Max explained his idea.
It seems to me, Max said, that wed do a
lot better if we shifted everyone who would
be laid off to a marketing effort. There has to
be more business out there. Im sure the guys
in Boats would rather not knock on doors
with a suit and tie on, but Ill bet theyll do it
if it means keeping their jobs. If they succeed,
well all get bigger long-term incentive checks
and no one will lose their jobs.
When it was his turn, Marvin, an apprentice
electrician, commented skeptically, Its a
nice idea, but I couldnt see myself doing it,
and I cant see those guys in Boats doing it
either.
George, the circles non-management
representative to the General Circle,
continued, I like Maxs idea. I think the Boat
guys would rather stand on a carpet than in
the unemployment line. Whats more, we
have been doing some work for Boats making
special electrical cabinets. If they dont bring
in more work, we could be next for a layoff.
The dialog continued for several more
minutes as the circle fell in behind Maxs idea.
Gene, the circles facilitator then summarized
their thinking by making a proposal for a
decision. Ok, it sounds like this is what we
want to do: We designate Max as a temporary
Board Circle
General Circle
Building
Department
Circle
Boat
Department
Circle
Assembly
Department
Circle
Admin
Department
Circle
Figure 7: Electrical Companys Dynamic Circle Structure
second circle representative to the General
Management Circle. He will propose that
we delay the layoff for one month while the
Boats Department and anyone else who can
be spared concentrates on marketing. The
regular marketers will have to give some fast
marketing and sales training. Max and I will
get Administration to help us calculate how
much of the company reserve wed have to
spend to delay the layoff.
Gene glanced at Henry who was scribbling
Genes words in the offcial circle notebook.
Henry nodded to indicate that he did not
need Gene to repeat the proposed decision.
Ok, Gene continued, lets go around the
circle to see if anyone has objections. No
one did. As the meeting broke up, Alex, the
supervisor of the Assembly Department, said
hed report the decision to the companys
general manager at once and ask the General
Management Circles secretary to call an
emergency meeting for the next afternoon.
After initial reservations were resolved
in the General Circle meeting, the circle
decided to support the idea of temporarily
reassigning the Boat workers to Marketing.
Because the circle was limited in their
authority to authorize expenditures from
the reserve. What they did do was elect Max
as a temporary second representative to the
companys Board Circle (Board of Directors).
In a special meeting, after heated debate, the
Board gave its approval to a slightly modifed
plan, and the General Circle put the plan into
action. It worked. Within three weeks, there
were enough new customer commitments that
the layoff never occurred, and the company
is stronger today with a more diversifed
customer base.
In this second example, the fourth defning
element of dynamic governance, double-
linking, facilitated upward communication
of an idea all the way to top management.
The double-link process catapulted Max
to a temporary position on the Board of
the company. The self-organizing process
identifed the real leader of the moment and
put him in the right position.
New Corporate Structure
The next section explains how the four
defning elements are applied in the
larger organizational context by analyzing
conventional corporate models of governance
and comparing them with the dynamic
governance model shown in Figure 7.
Conventional businesses almost universally
rely on a combination of majority vote and
autocratic decision-making. Figure 8 expands
Figure 6 to illustrate that a majority of the
Board members select the CEO who, acting
for the Board, functions as an autocratic
decision-maker.
By autocratic we dont mean that the CEO
is dictatorial; thats only one autocratic style.
In fact, CEOs and their managers may
employ a wide range of autocratic styles
including telling or giving direct orders,
selling, participative, and joined styles. With
the joined or participative style, mangers
try to follow the consensus of their staff or
peers, reserving fnal decisions to themselves
only when necessary. These are all autocratic
styles because, regardless of collaborative
appearances, the auto, a single person, retains
the power to ignore all other voices when
making decisions. Each of these autocratic
styles has positive and negative qualities and
depending on the circumstances none is
inherently more desirable.
In contrast, it is important to understand
that dynamic governance is not a method of
participative or joined management. It is not a
management style. Rather it modifes the basic
structure of power that supports whatever
day-to-day style of management seems
most effective in a given context. Dynamic
governance makes leading, regardless of a
managers personal style, easier.
The evolution of business organizations
has tended toward greater equivalency of
everyone in a company. One stage in that
evolution was the development of unions.
Figure 9 adds a union feedback loop to the
corporate model depicted in Figure 6.
CEO
Board of Directors
Majority Minority
Subordinates
Figure 8: The Classic Corporate Model Uses
Majority Vote and Autocratic Decision-making
By law employers who are displeased with
employees statements can reprimand or
fre them. The law, however, protects
employees if they speak as a representative
of the companys union. Many brave and
dedicated persons struggled for decades to
win for workers the power to negotiate with
management from a position of collective
equality. From a systems viewpoint, unions
can potentially perform a valuable feedback
service. Since union representatives have
protection, feedback from them may be more
accurate than from individual employees.
Unfortunately, unions are also subject to the
politics created by majority vote that tends to
distort that feedback.
These politics, plus the fact that the union
stands outside the functional structure of
the company, make the union feedback
loop effective only in refecting matters of
broad and general concern. The feedback
refects the opinions of the majority, not the
minority, and is thus only partial feedback.
Furthermore, unions derive much of their
strength from their right to strike or to
require arbitration of disputes. Arbitration
and strikes inhibit rather than promote
communication with management, often
making it strained, legalistic, and us versus
them. Strikes especially can lead to bitterness
and are rife with distorting and troublesome
mass emotions.
President
Board of Directors
Majority Minority
Union
Majority Minority
Subordinates
Figure 9: The Classic Corporate Model with Union Feedback
A more recent development in the evolution
of the corporate form of organization is
employee stock ownership plans. Figure
10 slightly modifes Figure 9 to depict the
systems confguration created by such
schemes. It replaces the Union with Employee
Stockholders and redirects the feedback loop
to go directly to the stockholders rather
than to the president. Since the employee
stockholders feedback loop is even further
than the union feedback loop from the day-
to-day worker-supervisor communications
and decision-making, it is even more
ineffective. Its only values are to provide a
general positive incentive to the workers who
as stockholders beneft overall performance
and to protect against hostile takeovers.
Contrast Figures 8, 9 and 10 with Figure 7,
which depicts the dynamic governance power
structure. Because of the double-linking
principle, Figure 7 includes a feedback loop
at each level in the hierarchy, including the
Board, creating a wholly dynamic structure in
which feedback is direct and ensured.
Figure 11 illustrates that the circles in Figure
7 are drawn as triangles both for ease of
illustration and to symbolize the circular
systems concept of dynamic steering: the
leading, doing, and measuring that follow
each other in a circular fashion. The triangle
apex represents the leading, the right
corner represents doing, and the left corner
represents measuring.
President
Board of Directors
Majority Minority
Stockholders
Majority Minority
Employee Stockholders
Majority Minority
Subordinates
Figure 10: Classic Corporate Model with Employee Stockowner Feedback Loop
Circles operate organically. For example, a
person riding a bicycle from point A to point
B is a dynamic system. The leg muscles push
the pedals and the hands steer, the doing. The
senses, the measuring component, such as the
eyes and inner ear give feedback to the brain,
the leading component. The brain assesses
the feedback and issues new guidance to the
muscles. If we remove any one of the three
components, we no longer have a system that
can be steered dynamically. Without dynamic
steering, the odds that the cyclist will reach
point B effciently, or at all, are very low.
Dynamic governance places great emphasis
on making both work processes and over-
all corporate guidance dynamically steerable.
Thus, a circle of people is one whose work
processes and power structure respond
Figure 11: Dynamic governance Circle Functions: Leading-Doing-Measuring
Leading
Measuring Doing
(Circle Policies and Orders) (Feedback)
(Data and Output)
dynamically to both the internal and external
environment of the organization.
The consent decision-making process
provides the measurement component that is
missing or weak in the classic models shown
in Figures 8, 9, and 10 because the boss can
choose to ignore feedback. In a dynamic
governance circle meeting, consent decision-
making removes the possibility of ignoring.
Double linking then extends the reach of
the feedback, creating an integrated and
dynamically steerable organization at every
level.
The dynamic governance circle structure
overlays the classic structure. In other words,
Figure 7 embeds Figure 6: Specifcally, the
lines that are the right-hand side of each
triangle in Figure 7 are identical to the lines
in Figure 6. They represent the top down
command structure of leader to doer. The
remaining part of each triangle is the feedback
loop. It represents power going from the
bottom upward in a circular relationship with
the top-down power. These feedback loops
are much more immediate, accurate, and
practical than the feedback loops shown in
Figures 9 and 10.
Finally, in a dynamically governed corporation,
the composition of the Board changes. The
hash marks at the upper side of the Board
Circle in Figure 7 refect participation by
outsiders. One of these outsiders represents
the stockholders. The other outsiders include
an expert in the companys business area, an
expert in the local government, and an expert
in management methods. Including a wide
range of expertise keeps the organization in
intimate touch with changes in the companys
environment.
Implementation
Top management should lead the
implementation of dynamic governance to
ensure that it proceeds holistically. Attempts
by factions to implement it from the bottom
or middle of their organizations can lead
to considerable friction. Some people
mistakenly perceive dynamic governance as a
revolutionary tool to use against management,
to get rid of the boss. Its not. The boss stays
put. The logic of dynamic governance sets
aside the either/or logic of workers versus
management. Dynamic governance logic is
often expressed in both/and statements. For
example, a dynamically governed business
places control of a company in the hands
of both stockholders and management and
in both management and workers. It typically
uses both autocratic and egalitarian decision-
making. It provides both a security assurance
and a creative stimulus. It is concerned with
both proft and human values.
By combining seemingly incompatible
concepts, both/and thinking stimulates
creative thinking and causes that seemingly
chaotic thinking to self-organize into very
practical solutions.
Since the implementation process is both
emancipating and motivating, conficting
feelings of caution, elation, frustration,
relief, fear, and appreciation may arise
during implementation. Careful planning
can minimize this discomfort and avoid
disruption of the ongoing work process.
Implementation begins in the imagination
of those in currently in charge, the owners
or the board. They have to see dynamic
governance as a possible strategy for achieving
their values and vision for the business or
organization. Gaining this insight is the frst
step in implementation. They are likely to say
they are looking for better communications,
more creativity in order to stay ahead of
competition, a more stable labor force, or
simply more proft. These are all valid reasons,
but it is more effective if those in control can
articulate their dream for the company, their
vision. Having a clear vision helps integrate
dynamic governance into other strategies for
realizing this vision.
The frst step in implementation is for top
management to make a clear decision to try
out dynamic governance for a specifc period
of time, to evaluate their experience after that
period, and to plan next steps based on that
evaluation.
The second step is usually to form an
Implementation Circle consisting of the CEO,
other selected top managers, and persons
from other levels of the organization. The
Implementation Circle receives training in
dynamic governance and deepens its learning
by applying the training to its own operations.
The Implementation Circles job is to plan,
guide, and evaluate a series of implementation
steps, for example, implementing dynamic
governance in one department and measuring
the results. If successful, the Implementation
Circle would probably expand the method
to more departments. The second step ends
once the whole organization has a double-
linked circle structure and in-house trainers
are able to train current and new staff.
The third step, that can partially overlap the
second step, is to install dynamic engineering
methods. These methods organize all work
processes on a dynamic basis and create a
structure to guide the organizations own
evolution. Once these methods are in place,
the organization will likely be ready for
ISO 9000 quality certifcation. The quality
methods will feel integral to the normal work
processes and not imposed from outside,
as is so often the case when traditionally
structured and managed companies seek ISO
9000 certifcation.
The fourth step in implementation focuses
on the Board Circle, or Top Circle, that
determines the budget for the organization.
In a dynamically governed organization this
includes setting formulas for the part of each
staff members compensation that depends
on the profts or losses of their department
and the company as a whole. This variable
compensation based on profts and losses
ensures that each staff member, investor,
circle, and the company as a whole has explicit
fnancial feedback about their performance.
The formulas include a regular payment for
investors and salaries for management, and
staff, plus short- and long-term incentive
payments.
In addition to a new fnancial compensation
structure, the Board Circle may wish to
revise its Incorporation and Bylaws structure
to make consent the legal basis of decision-
making. The corporation retains its ability
to raise money through sale of stock, but
because the basis of decision-making is
consent, not ownership, a hostile takeover
becomes impossible. The legal person, the
corporation, thus owns itself; just as you, a
natural person, own yourself.
One attraction of dynamic governance is the
freedom it offers to use it in whole or in part.
The implementation process can be paused
at any point or only applied to one division.
This offers a practical way to gain experience
with the model.
Benefts of Self-organization
It is natural to ask, Why bother to make
my company self-organizing? What are
the benefts? The summary answer is that
the self-organizing process spurs creative
thinking and catalyzes new structures and
ideas. Although a circle meeting might be
seen as a forum for endless argument and
indecisiveness, in practice it is not. It is
more reminiscent of a stock market or a folk
market place where prices and exchanges
emerge spontaneously. Figure 12 summarizes
the major advantages and disadvantages of
dynamic governance.
Systems Theory and Dynamic
Engineering
Some readers will be interested in the
theoretical background of the four defning
elements. Dynamic governance draws on
knowledge from many disciplines, particularly
systems theory. It has probably emerged only
recently because the crucial insights provided
by the science of cybernetics were simply
not available. Cybernetics is the science of
communications and control. Systems theory,
closely related to cybernetics, explores the
similarities between seemingly unrelated
phenomena. By establishing reliable analogies,
the insights gained in one area of study can
accelerate understanding and discoveries in
other felds. The most powerful analogies
are mathematical because they are the most
precise. For instance, as schoolchildren we
learned to think of electrical circuits as being
like water pipes. That analogy is a very
good one because the equations that describe
hydrodynamic volume and pressure have
the same algebraic form as the equations
related to watts and voltage. Finding the
social sciences lacking in clear management
concepts, Endenburg developed the four
defning elements of dynamic governance
by making analogies with processes clearly
understood in the physical sciences, especially
electronics and biology.
English mathematician and computer scientist
Alan Turing, Russian Belgian chemist and
complexity theorist Ilya Prigogine, and others
laid the foundation of systems theory during
the 1950s by generalizing the principles of
mechanics and thermodynamics to other
felds of study. Their initial work led to new
disciplines such as operations research and
found numerous practical applications in
manufacturing and management science. It
was the basis of the design of computers and
generated such now familiar tools as PERT
charts and fow diagrams. One of the tasks
of the systems approach to management is
to understand why some organizations are
better organized than others and to provide
a rigorous methodology for improving
organizational design and evaluation.
Prigogine became particularly interested in
self-organizing systems. In 1977, Prigogine
received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry
for his contributions to non-equilibrium
thermodynamics, particularly the theory
Advantages
Promotes creativity and problem solving
throughout the organization
Supports the interests of investors,
management, and staff
Speeds adaptation to change
Engages and utilizes the energy of every
member of the organization
Generates high quality products and
services
Increases staff commitment to and
identifcation with the organization
Results in fewer, more satisfying meetings
Reduces sick leave
Improves safety record
Raises awareness of costs
Improves client orientation
Decreases the odds of burnout
Builds program self-discipline
Supports leadership among peers
Disadvantages
Requires careful implementation
planning
Necessitates training in new concepts
May arouse varying intense emotions
during implementation (skepticism,
elation, anxiety, excitement)
May, at frst, be uncomfortable for
those not accustomed to sharing the
responsibility of diffcult decisions
Figure 12: Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of Dynamic governance
of dissipative structures. In lay terms, he
advanced our understanding of how order
can arise from chaos. By mathematical
reasoning, he widened the scope of his work
from purely physical sciences to ecological
and sociological studies. Others have used
these ideas to examine such diverse topics
as the origin of life on Earth, the dynamic
equilibrium of ecosystems, and even the
prevention of traffc jams.
In 1978, Herman Haken, a professor at
the Institute for Theoretical Physics at
the University of Stuttgart, extended the
mathematics associated with gases in
Prigogines work and used the term synergetics
to describe the new discipline he founded, that
studies self-organizing phenomena. Hakens
work showed that self-organizing activities as
far apart as lasers, the regular streaks of cirrus
clouds, certain rhythmic chemical reactions,
patterns in slime mold, regular fuctuations in
the number of hare and lynx pelts received
by the Hudsons Bay company over a 90 year
period, and formation of public opinion are
mathematically all one process.
Prigogine and Haken showed that, to be
self-organizing, a system must meet two
conditions. First, the elements of any self-
organizing system must be equivalent, that is,
not controlling each other. A system in which
the elements do not limit or control each
other is without form; it is chaotic. Second,
to be self-organizing, a system must have an
external source of energy. These conditions
are true for all self-organizing systems,
whether the system elements are people freely
uniting around a common activity or atoms
harmonizing to one frequency in a laser.
The four defning elements of dynamic
governance create the conditions needed
for self-organizing to occur: consent,
elections, and double linking establish the
frst condition, that of not controlling each
other. For example, in the election process,
the procedure in which each person makes
his or her nomination privately on a piece of
paper intentionally creates a chaotic situation.
The circle component provides the required
external energy source, viz, the common
aim which is assigned by the higher circle.
The common aim creates tension: We must
work together to produce a specifc product
or service, and we must do so in the face of
competition.
In contrast, we can see that conventional
organizations do not create the conditions
needed to release the phenomenon of self-
organization. Neither autocratic nor majority-
vote decision-making allows the elements,
the people, of the system, the company, to be
not controlling each other. For example, if
each person on a board of directors has one
vote, the majority of votes on any one issue
controls the minority. Thus, the majority vote
procedure destroys the initial equivalence.
Or, for example, managers in a conventional
company may try to promote creative thinking
by fattening their organization or by adopting
a joined autocratic style. The reality, however,
is that the manger alone retains the real power.
Thus, conventional businesses are organized,
but they are not self-organizing. Only a
dynamic governance structure, that is, one
in which all the members are fundamentally
equal, fundamentally not trapped in a boss-
servant relationship, supports the natural
phenomenon of self-organization.
Conclusion
This article introduced dynamic governance,
a new method of decision-making and
organizational governance. It included two
detailed examples of the decision-making
method in day-to-day operation and outlined
the governance system. It made brief mention
of the discipline of dynamic engineering that
develops existing work processes to make
them more easily steered.
Dynamically governed businesses, educational
institutions and nonproft organizations are
signifcantly different from their conventional
counterparts in many ways, ranging from job
satisfaction to overall fnancial viability. The
dynamic governance method is an empty
tool, useful where and whenever people are
organized.
Still relatively new, dynamic governance is
a methodology with tremendous untapped
benefts. It lends itself well to partial use or
full implementation.
Dynamic governance has considerable
unexplored potential for many areas of
human endeavor. Those who are able to see
the potential gains from dynamic governance
will be invaluable to their organizations.
These early adopters will be responsible for
transforming their associated institutions in
ways that enable everyone involved in the
organization, as well as the organizations
themselves, to achieve their full potential.
Selected Bibliography and Related
Resources
Much of the literature on dynamic governance
is in Dutch; however, there are magazine
articles in other languages, including
English, French, German, Spanish, Italian
and Arabic. Readers may obtain copies of
these articles through the Global Sociocratic
Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands via
www.sociocracy.biz or from the Center for
Sociocratic Governance in Washington,
DC, USA via www.sociocracy.info or www.
sociocraticgovernance.org. Also available in
English is: We the People: Consenting to a Deeper
Democracy by John Buck and Sharon Villines,
available from www.amazon.com, and two
books by Gerard Endenburg: Sociocracy: The
Organization of Decision-making, and the more
recent book Sociocracy as Social Design.
C. A. Cannegieters book The Human Aspects
of Economics: A Treatise on Unemployment,
Infation, and World Poverty (Exposition press,
Smithtown, New York 1982, pages 150-
184) gives a good overview of various
early sociocratic initiatives and contains an
extensive bibliography.
Books about dynamic governance are
also available in French. We particularly
recommend La Democratie se Meurt, Vive la
Sociocratie by Gilles Charest, 2007, available
from www.sociogest.ca.
While a number of books are available on
general systems theory, we particularly
suggest General Systems Theory: Essential Concepts
and Applications, by Anatol Rapoport (Abacus
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts); Cybernetics,
Artifcial Intelligence and Ecolog y: Proceedings of the
4
th
Annual Symposium of the American Society for
Cybernetics, edited by Herbert W. Robinson
and Douglas E. Knight (Spartan Books, New
York); and The Macroscope, Joel de Rosnay,
translated from French by Robert Edwards
(Harper & Row, New York).
For more information on the scientifc
approach to synergetics, we recommend
Herman Hakens Synergetics: Non-equilibrium
Phase Transitions and Self-Organization in Physics,
Chemistry, Biolog y, and Sociolog y, (2
nd
Edition,
Springer Verlag, New York 1978); and Erich
Jantschs The Self-Organizing Universe (Pergamon
Press, New York 1979) which discusses
Prigogines work with self-organizing
dissipative structures. Jantschs book does not
require facility with mathematics; however,
familiarity with calculus and linear algebra
are helpful for both of Hakens books.
These scientifc approaches contrast to more
philosophical treatments of synergetics such
as Buckminster Fullers Synergetics (MacMillan
Publishing Co., New York 1975), which
seems less subject to empirical verifcation
and practical application.
Dynamic governance carries the modern drift
toward power equalization in employment to
its logical conclusion. The power equalization
milieu can be seen from a number of
perspectives, and the following list is a
selection of various viewpoints: Introduction to
Management Science by Thomas M. Cook and
Robert A. Russell (Prentice-Hall Inc., New
Jersey 1977); Megatrends: Ten New Directions
Transforming Our Lives by John Naisbitt (Warner
books, inc., New York 1982); The Social Science
of Organizations Four Perspectives by Henry A.
Latane, David Mechanic, George Strauss, and
George B. Strother (Prentice-Hall Inc. New
Jersey, 1963); In Search of Excellence by Thomas
J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. (Harper
and Row, New York 1982); Another Way of Life
by Patricia Baum (G.P. Putnams Sons, New
York 1973); Utopian Thought in the Western World
by Frank E. Manuel and Fritzie P. Manuel
(The Belknap Press of the Harvard University
Press, Cambridge 1979); What do Unions Do?
By Richard B. Freeman and James L. Medoff
(Basic Books, Inc., New York 1984); The North
Will Rise Again by Jeremy Rifin and Randy
Barber (Beacon Press, Boston 1978); A Piece of
the Action by Stuart M. Speiser (Van Nostrand
Reinhold company, New Yo9rk, 1977);
Creating the Corporate Future by Russell Ackoff
( John Wiley and Sons, New York 1981);
Beyond Majority Rule: Voteless Decisions in the
Religious Society of Friends by Michael J. Sheeran
(Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious
Society of Friends, Philadelphia 1983); and
Dynamic Administration: the Collected Papers of
Mary Parker Follett edited by E. Fox and L.
Urwick (Pitman Publishing, New York 1973).
Finally, there is the pioneering work of Rensis
Likert. One can follow the development of
his thought in three books: New Patterns of
Management (McGraw-Hill, New York 1961);
The Human Organization (McGraw-Hill, New
York 1976) and New Ways of Managing Confict
(McGraw-Hill, New York 1976). Likert and
Associates, Inc., of Ann Arbor, Michigan, are
continuing Likerts work.
More recent publications of interest include:
Quest for Prosperity by Konosuke Matsushita
(PHP Institute, Kyoto, Japan, 1988), The
Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning by Henry
Mintzberg (Free Press, New York, 1994) and
Built to Last by James Collins and Jerry Porras
(Harper Business, New York, 1994) for a
discussion of a broader vision for businesses;
Planning for Quality by Joseph M. Juran (Free
Press, New York, 1988) for a discussion of
quality concepts with a human face; The Fifth
Discipline by Peter Senge (Doubleday, New
York, 1990) for insights into systems thinking
applied to a business environment; Managing
on the Edge by Richard Pascale (Viking Books,
New York, 1990) and Leading the Revolution by
Gary Hamel (Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, 2002) for descriptions of the need
for dynamic steering and development to
cope with constantly changing environments;
Complexity by Mitchell Waldrop (Simon &
Shuster, New York, 1992) and Competing for
the Future by Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad
(Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
1994) for a review of concepts of chaos,
complexity, and self-organization, and
strategic thinking as they apply to business;
Reengineering the Corporation by James Champy
and Michael Hammer (Harper Business, New
York, 1993) for techniques that are related
in part to dynamic engineering; Emotional
Intelligence by Daniel Goleman (Bantam, New
York, 1997) and The Living Company: Habits
for Survival in a Turbulent Business Environment
by Arie de Geus (Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, 1997) for an in-depth analysis
of the importance of human-to-human
skills a strong rationale for using dynamic
governance to govern.
A recent journal article of note is: Romme,
A. Georges and Endenburg, Gerard,
Construction Principles and Design Rules
in the Case of Circular Design, Organization
Science: a Journal of the Institute of Management
Sciences. 17 (2):287. Interesting mathematical
exploration of self-organization is described
in Klarreich, Erica. 2006. The Mind of
the Swarm. Science News,170:347. Also,
Millius, Susan, Swarm Savvy, How bees,
ants and other animals avoid dumb collective
decisions, May 9th, 2009; Vol. 175 #10 (p.
16). Finally, look for Tom Seeleys book,
Honeybee Democracy, due out in 2010.
About the Authors
Gerard Endenburg
A citizen of The Netherlands, Gerard
Endenburg received his high school
education at De Werkplaats, in Bilthoven, an
innovative and infuential school. The school,
founded by educational and social theorist
Kees Boeke, operated under a consensus
decision-making system derived after the
Quaker model for use in a secular setting. On
completion of his college studies in electrical
engineering and radar technology and his
mandatory military service, Gerard worked
for a while for Philips Electronics where he
was instrumental in obtaining a patent for
the fat speakers now used in many personal
electronic devices including cell phones. He
then joined Endenburg Elektrotechniek,
Inc., the electrical engineering company
headed by his father. His parents established
the company shortly after World War II as
a practical laboratory to try out their ideas
about management and industrial reform.
Gerard became general manager in 1968, a
position he held for 30 years. He remained on
the board circle of the company until 2007.
Inspired by Boekes ideas, his engineering
training in systems theory, and work in the
feld of synergetics, Gerard developed a system
of decision-making based on the principle of
consent, which could be added to the existing
functional structure of any organization,
regardless of its size or objective: dynamic
governance, known in the Netherlands as the
sociocratic circle-organization method. In
1970, Gerard started to introduce this model
into the factory. The frst reports on the
dynamic governance experiment appeared
in the prestigious Dutch daily newspaper
NRC-Handelsblad in 1974. A year later, he
published his frst book, Sociocratie, een redelijk
ideal (Sociocracy, a Reasonable Ideal).
He helped found the Sociocratisch Centrum
in 1977 to coordinate and to encourage the
growing number of Dutch organizations that
were adopting dynamic governance and to
support the interest expressed from countries
throughout the world. The Center now
organizes lectures, seminars and training
courses on dynamic governance and has
overseen its implementation in numerous
organizations.
In 1981 Gerard published his second book,
Sociocratie, de Organisatie van de Besluitvorming
(Sociocracy, the Organization of Decision-making).
This book was launched at a press conference
attended by Dr. W. Albeda, then Netherlands
Minister of Social Affairs. The succeeding
Minister of Social Affairs, Dr. J. de Koning,
launched Gerards Sociocratisch Manifest
(Sociocratic Declaration) at a press conference in
1984. In 1991 Gerard was awarded a PhD for his
work with dynamic governance (sociocracy).
His thesis is published in Sociocracy as Social
Design. Today, Gerard remains involved in the
activities of the Sociocratisch Centrum and
the Global Sociocratic Center from his seat
on board circle and teaches in the business
school of the University of Maastricht.
John A. Buck
John is a certifed dynamic governance
consultant. After receiving a BA in English
from Brown University, John worked for
the Boeing Corporation as a technical writer
and then for the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) in Washington, D.C.,
where he earned the Secretary of Department
of Transportations Award for Meritorious
Achievement for his pioneering work
with information technology. He worked
subsequently as a project manager for the
Harris Corporation, managing more than
200 people in a global information systems
installation and training project for the U.S.
Department of State. In this position, John
used many dynamic governance systems
concepts. The project received ISO 9000
certifcation and consistently outstanding
ratings from it State Department clients. He
earned a Masters Degree from The George
Washington University in 1999 in Quantitative
Sociology. His thesis examined several
dynamically governed organizations in the
Netherlands. It demonstrated statistically that
the staff of those companies had a signifcantly
higher commitment to their organizations
than typical Dutch workers. His publications
include numerous professional articles
about aspects of personnel management
and automation, including techniques for
establishing upward mobility programs,
new concepts for human resource program
evaluation, and strategies for designing and
implementing new technology systems.
John established GovernanceAlive LLC
in 2006 from which he and others now
train and consult full time on dynamic
governance. In 2009 Sharon Villines, Greg
Rouillard, and he established the Center for
Sociocratic Governance, a nonproft located
in Washington, DC, USA whose mission is
to increase public awareness and develop
the ability of individuals and organizations
to apply the principles and methods of
sociocratic governance. It currently offers
discussion lists and publications, sponsors
conferences, and facilitates access to training
courses. For more information about the
Center, see: www.sociocraticgovernance.org.
John has three children and lives with his
wife in Silver Spring, Maryland.
For further information, contact John at:
[email protected].
For further information
email [email protected]
call 800-870-2092
Copyright Sociocratic Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands 2003

Creative Forces of Self Organization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creative Forces of Self Organization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creative Forces of Self Organization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CREATIVE FORCES

You might also like