We are here in beautiful Barcelona to talk about collaboration at scale with James, the co-creator of Sociocracy 3.0 (S3).
Good morning, James.
Good morning, Javier. How are you today?
I'm good, happy to be here, and excited about the conversation.
Introduction to Sociocracy 3.0
James, for everyone in the audience who may not be familiar with Sociocracy 3.0 (S3) and your work, can you give us an introduction?
Sure. Maybe it’s helpful to start by clarifying the term. If democracy means "rule by the people," then sociocracy means "rule by the social group." Another way of looking at it is that people who are impacted by decisions and are connected to specific areas of work have the power to make and influence decisions that affect them.
This concept has fascinated me for nearly 20 years. When I first encountered sociocracy, I was working with at-risk young people in the UK. At the same time, I inherited a residential center and community that was struggling relationally. The departing owner invited me to step in and work with this conflicted community.
As part of that work, I learned about nonviolent communication and sociocracy. At the time, in 2001, there was only one English webpage on sociocracy, along with a hand-typed document from Australia explaining the concept. Despite having very limited resources, we experimented with some sociocratic patterns within the community, and it was transformational. By 2003, the majority of the members were collaborating more effectively, and those who weren’t aligned naturally moved on.
Bridging Sociocracy and Agile
By 2014, I was actively teaching the Sociocratic Circle Method, which came out of the Netherlands. It was a predecessor to Holacracy and had influenced many agile approaches. Around that time, I met Bernhard Bockelbrink, an agile coach from Berlin. I brought sociocracy, he brought agility, and together we explored how they could work in tandem.
Bernhard’s rigorous inquiry caught my attention. He asked where the Sociocratic Circle Method was working effectively. I had to admit that while I saw many organizations adopting certain aspects of it, few stuck with the full method over time. That realization led us to the foundation of Sociocracy 3.0 (S3). Instead of promoting a rigid framework, we focused on identifying fundamental patterns in organizational behavior that make collaboration more effective.
Our approach was not about creating something new but rather articulating observable patterns already present in organizations. These emergent behaviors are what make S3 adaptable and useful across different contexts.
The Growth of S3
Since then, Bernhard and I have referred to ourselves as co-founders rather than co-creators of S3. Lilian David later joined us, forming a core team that continues to develop and evolve the framework. Today, S3 is supported by a growing global community of practitioners who are actively using and refining it.
Lilian and I run courses worldwide. We started with an introductory course, which has now evolved into Practitioner Level 1 and Level 2. Recently, we’ve begun collaborating with other coaches and trainers to expand our reach and make S3 accessible to a wider audience.
Collaboration at Scale
James, let’s imagine an organization or department with 100 to 300 people working together. How can S3 patterns help distribute responsibilities and improve collaboration?
Great question. Many organizations turn to S3 when they reach around 80 to 100 people. At that point, adhocracy (spontaneous decision-making without structured governance) is no longer sufficient. Unfortunately, many founders don’t consider governance from the outset, leading to a mishmash of ad-hoc processes.
As organizations grow, pain points begin to emerge, prompting them to seek structured solutions. A common mistake at this stage is looking for a one-size-fits-all formula to magically fix everything. But that approach is rarely effective. The first step should be identifying the key organizational needs that are not being adequately addressed.
S3 offers a pattern called “Navigate via Tension.” This pattern invites organizations to explicitly acknowledge and respond to tensions—the gaps between what is desired and what is currently happening. These tensions highlight areas that need improvement. The key is to prioritize the most critical tensions rather than trying to fix everything at once.
Who Identifies Tensions?
Does navigating via tension involve just a specific group of people, or should it be done by everyone in the organization?
Ideally, everyone should be involved. Every individual acts as a "nerve ending" of the organization, detecting areas that need improvement. The challenge in many organizations is that people may feel unsafe speaking up, or they may not believe their input will be valued.
When employees fear repercussions for raising concerns, psychological safety becomes an issue. The solution is to create an environment where people are encouraged to share observations without fear of negative consequences.
Clarifying Domains and Drivers
Once tensions are identified, how do organizations structure work effectively?
The next step is clarifying domains—distinct areas of influence and decision-making within the organization. Domains can be teams, departments, or specific functions like HR or finance. Identifying who is responsible for what ensures accountability and prevents duplication of effort.
We also define drivers, which are situations that motivate action. A driver consists of three elements:
- A specific situation or need.
- A relevant context.
- A perceiver (the person identifying the situation).
By mapping domains and drivers, organizations can direct tensions to the right people who are best positioned to respond.
Facilitating Information Flow
With multiple teams and departments, how can organizations ensure that information flows effectively?
Information flow is one of the biggest challenges in large organizations. Many rely on hierarchical decision-making, which slows down response times. Instead, S3 encourages linking between teams. If decisions in one area impact another, representatives from both teams should participate in discussions.
This linking mechanism, also used in sociocracy and Holacracy, ensures that relevant information reaches decision-makers without unnecessary bottlenecks.
Consent Decision-Making
Once we have information flowing and responsibilities clarified, how should teams make decisions?
S3 introduces consent decision-making. Unlike majority voting (which favors the majority) or consensus (which can be blocked by a single person), consent decision-making shifts power to well-reasoned arguments.
Decisions are made when there are no valid objections—objections being arguments that highlight unintended consequences or propose improvements. This approach ensures that decisions are informed, inclusive, and adaptable.
Role Selection
How does S3 approach selecting people for key roles?
S3’s role selection pattern allows teams to nominate individuals based on the strongest argument rather than personal preference. This process is used in sociocracy and has been successfully applied in organizations transitioning from traditional management structures.
For example, in a Barcelona-based company, the development team struggled with architectural decisions. After two years of indecision, they used role selection to appoint a lead architect. The process included multiple nomination rounds, open discussions, and a final decision made by consensus. As a result, the chosen architect had broad support, and the team successfully improved its decision-making process.
Final Thoughts
James, why is collaboration at scale so important?
Collaboration is essential for modern organizations. As complexity increases, decision-making must be decentralized. This requires structured governance and information flow mechanisms. Organizations need empowered individuals and teams who can act autonomously while remaining aligned with broader objectives.
Ultimately, S3 is not a rigid framework but a set of adaptable patterns that help organizations evolve and respond to change effectively. By applying these principles, organizations can enhance collaboration, navigate complexity, and continuously improve.
Thank you, James. This has been a truly enlightening conversation.
Thank you, Javier, and thanks to everyone for listening and watching.