Synergy between Sociocracy and the VSM

I am with @bobcan on this one.

I think there is something very fundamental going on here. It's to do with how we operate as human beings. Living in complexity - really experiencing it - raises anxiety.

This is often a difficult thing to raise - I know because I have been given a hard time elsewhere, for even suggesting it.

I think systems thinking in its many flavours (and a managerialist approach in general) is attractive because it reinforces the idea that we are outside of 'the system'. And therefore we don't need to look at our own contribution to what we experience - the 'process' of working and being.

I don't deny that systems thinking has had value - as a lens. Models can be useful. Maybe VSM can be useful in that way.

But it is important to remember that they are only models, and they may delude us into thinking we are 'outside' the experience.

And why are we drawn to models, if we are really honest? Because often they reduce our anxiety?

I think a better way to approach organisational life is to notice our own anxiety. Notice our own communication and work to improve it. And to trust that different and better results will emerge from that, than trying to stand outside and analyse - and 'change' something or someone (usually someone else!).

This is difficult work - harder than standing outside. Because it means updating our own thinking. And becoming more emotional literate.

''I think a better way to approach organisational life is to notice our own anxiety. Notice our own communication and work to improve it. And to trust that different and better results will emerge from that, than trying to stand outside and analyse'

Like @graham2 , I'm new to this, but, if my last couple of years experience with Gildedsplinters are anything to go by, I'm with @peteburden on this.

Challenge is though, can one/how does one apply this to sustaining a commercial entity swimming in the foetid water of late capitalism when the extant business models, while clearly redundant, still hold sway?

There are over 7000 co-operatives in the UK with a combined turnover of over £36 billion pounds and employing around 235 000 people.

The first hurdle to get over is the idea that somehow co-operatives ‘can’t work’. The second is not to succumb to the British disease of innovation every time, but to examine what has worked for successful co-operatives and replicate it time and again.

Dave

Simply put I think there are two options:

• talk about things
• talk to people

When we talk about models and systems, whether it be VSM or Sociocracy or any other, we also run the risk of talking about the businesses we are in and come across.

Talking to is completely different - we focus on how we communicate, not what we say.

We can move from talking in abstract terms - "Which model is better?". To talking in concrete terms - "What is your experience of working in your coop?"

We can argue for ever about which model - VSM or Sociocracy - is better. If we ask people about their actual experience we will get a different result.

And if we work to improve how we ask those questions - about experience - we will probably get different results each time.

For example, asking a question that one doesn't know the answer to and then really listening to the answer will give a different result from asking a leading question, and not bothering to listen to the reply.

(Just look at what happens at Prime Minister's question time - leading questions, and no listening. The result...)

If we speak consciously and listen carefully I think we'll usually get a different result. Rather than talking about systemic patterns we are actually changing them.

That's how we apply this @roybrooks

It also means we can actually learn together from what has worked and what hasn't - we can look at the evidence together. That is sadly quite rare I think.

It's hard, I admit. It means giving up power - often based on knowledge and experience - and becoming more open to experience.

Thanks Pete that rings true.

Each cooperative, each organisation can be treated in three distict ways: As a system in which people have roles and functions.
As a process of conflict in which thesis gives rise to antithesis and resolves itself in a synthesis.
As a complex of situated narratives and interactions in which we collaborate in co-creating our reality

Systems and approaches and models work best within the systems approach. I am for the situated narratives and interactionists...

There is an important concept in science which says that any new theory (and there are always lots of new theories) has to work at least as well as the existing theory to be taken seriously - as opposed to being the pet theory of one person or a small group.

I remember 30 years ago being very excited by the VSM model and reading up on it. But over the last 30 years whole new co-operative sectors (not to mention other forms of mutual action, social as well as economic) have sprung up. None of which seem to use the VSM. I think we would be better spending our time considering and studying what has worked than a model which, exciting though it seems, has not been made to work.

I am trying to search for synergy @davehollings :slight_smile: . Given all of the examples of use provided by Stafford, Jon and Angela, what evidence can you offer which supports your statement "exciting though it seems, has not been made to work"?

If the model works in general (not in a few special circumstances) then it is readily replicated. We can see this throughout the history of the co-operative movement (and throughout human history). So the evidence is 'the dog that did not bark'.
If the model worked, after 30 years there would be dozens if not hundreds of such enteprrises thriving around the country, with new groups picking up the model and running with it because it met their needs so well. And there aren't.

Is the epistemology of your argument correct Dave? :thinking:
Where there not times in our past where the church refused to look down the telescope or Einsteins theories were mocked by the established view of the day? I came to this community looking for answers I knew I would not find elsewhere. There are subversive forces at play and a gift to them would be allowing "complicated" and sheer ignorance to serve their purpose. I know it is impossible to change your view its not your fault its that blasted dissonance that afflicts us all. :slight_smile:

I wish to clarify use of the term "sheer ignorance". It was not aimed at @davehollings but a general expression where knowledge becomes clouded, through being considered "complicated" underused or covertly hidden. Perhaps the question could be asked, who's self interest is served by promoting awareness?