Has sociocracy definitively ruined my collaborative abilities?

I believe - as loyal readers of this blog know by now- that self-organization is not a tool to achieve "something else" but an end in itself. What is more important that being able to work together? Once your battles are won or lost, once your projects are accomplished or abandoned..or flourishing:) ... what's left, if not the contacts, the friendship and the capability that you've built in yourself and others to stand up again and reorganize...?
What is community? A group of people reunited by a theoretical vision? a group of friends sharing a roof? ...or a group of people truly committed working together as peers on a common aim?
My life experience so far taught me that truly "living" the commitment to each other is the pre-requisite for building collectives that are not just straw in the wind. And what is a commitment if not an intentional set of agreements that requires some effort to be kept in place?
Those were my thoughts when joining the SoFA sociocracy academy 3 years ago for a year-long dive into sociocratic governance. And what a ride it was. Both the contents and the learning methodology were nothing short of revolutionary, but...

Reality hits

When I came back to try & apply those learnings in the world, reality struck back at me in the face. I realized that there' s no one really doing sociocracy out there. More and more communities and grassroots groups believe they are doing it, but that's a bare ghost to what I've experienced in SoFA. And applying it in a sloppy way is sometimes worse than not applying it at all.
I was lucky in XR-Belgium we cut some corners sometimes but, overall, thanks to some exceptionally determined folks (and equally exceptional unemployment benefits :)), we were able to set up a decent-enough governance system.
However, apart from that one case, all I encounter here on the ground are dysfunctional systems: people traumatized by excessive bureaucracy linked to governance, associations that nominally work sociocratically but where organizational power is held by "gurus", collectives that work decently well but which apply only some elements of sociocracy....and (unknowingly) miss most of the benefits and still have to rely on a lot of implicit power-games to stay afloat. These situations are highly problematic, because then people connect their frustration to the adoption of too much structure (this conclusion is more direct and sticky than attributing the failures to the way the governance structures were designed in relation to the needs of the group or to a sloppy implementation...) and there's a fallback to the myth of spontaneity. To make things worse, people with such experiences, become even more skeptical to sociocracy and the need to unlearn what I call pseudosociocracy becomes an additional barrier to truly learn sociocracy.
So, although I agree 100% with my sociocracy teacher's recommendation to only join groups following these criteria: 1) Be run sociocratically 2) Have a clear purpose 3) being with people that I like
... I found myself at an impasse.

I am also traumatized

After the recognition that there are not (or at least I haven't found) groups meeting those criteria right now, the pragmatic approach would be to lower my standards or re-question my requirements...
But....do I even want to?
After seeing clearly the domination patterns in the so called "spontaneanous" (dis)organizing... and after having experienced "life" on the other side at SoFA, my criteria on who I wanna involve with have changed.
I don't want to be a preacher for sociocracy/ intentional self-organization with groups that don't already understand its importance. I' m allergic of the myth of spontaneity...and I should just recognize and state that. For me intentional governance is a value, therefore I want to involve with people who are already convinced about it. I really should start treating this in the same way as I treat other values: would I even start engaging with right-wing groups hoping I can convert them to socialism? No, I wouldn't. Converting people who want to informally organize (in their own words) to change their views can be an equally daunting task....
(and if you are reading between the lines that I am equating non-sociocrats with nazis..then read again because your brain is fooling you, sorry, more about this in my next article)
"The tyranny of structurelessness" appeared in the 70ies,already. Hidden power dynamics in group settings are well-known topics where we have ample possibilities to educate ourselves about, so why people just don't get it? I can't believe we're still talking this in 2026!

Blame and hope

It feels like I am venting anger and frustration by blaming people. Bad attitude,right? It would not be very constructive on my part.
The good news is that I am not blaming individuals, but our biased cognitive system (I will expand on this point one day!). Most people I am interacting with in collective processes have made the effort to educate themselves on these topics, they just ended up forming inner beliefs on the subject that are not in sync with reality (or at least are not in sync with mine.. which is about the same thing :-))
I believe one of the key factors is that they haven't truly experienced an alternative that works (and excitingly). They haven't gone past on what I would call adoption barrier for sociocracy and going past this barrier is hard. It requires a leap-of-faith. The whole group needs to commit to learning the new governance system. Equally important: the process must be skillfully carried out. It helps if there's someone with some experience. It's not straightforward but doable. The trickiest part is the initial commitment. For this, the role of the evangelist (or messiah) is above all bringing the testimony from life in sociocratic heaven... to open up people's imagination outside of the realm of the incremental change (unexciting, not worth it) and into the possibility of a paradigm shift.

The leverage point for "converting souls" is sharing the culture (or I'd say the philosophy) underpinning sociocracy, rather than its technical details. Maybe one day I'll be able to produce a thorough apology of Homus sociocraticus__ spelling out virtues even more glamorous than those of a Stoic. But for now let me just introduce some elements:

• A recognition that Panta rei (everything flows)..and if it does not flow, it stagnates.
  • The wisdom to see that we cannot find a perfect solution by talking, but rather by carrying out plans "good enough for now" and then adjusting them along the way.
• The unwavering commitment to feedback and evolution...and to each other's accountability...even if it sounds uncomfortable at first.
• The invitation to dare:"Everything is allowed until it's not" is another expression I love from my SoFA trainer.
  -The consensual decentralization of power to individuals who are in the condition to really exert it.

So there's still hope. I don't see any other way than keeping trying to be a sociocracy evangelist in my groups, sharing the good news that I've seen it working like clockwork at SoFA and inviting people to take the step to intentional governance. At the same time being aware that either people jump clearly onboard, or they don't. There's no point of trying to convice someone of something, if they do not see the point of it. I am nobody's psycologue & I do myself have the need to stay away from toxic group relationships.

No pain, no gain

Governace is tricky. Either is well designed from the start..or loopholes will sooner or later undermine it. Many times I've seen groups gradually introducing elements of sociocracy in an attempt to gradually transition to it. In my experience this approach is delusional and bound not to work. The essence of sociocracy are its cultural elements which often clash with the culture embedded in the previous way of doing things. You stay stuck in the cognitive dissonance of an incoherent hybrid model ...until you revert back to the old chaos. In the best of scenarios, you add a few isolated elements that marginally improve your processes and gain the righteousness to call yourselves inclusive.
Governance is a full system whose elements work together in connection. There needs to be a clear commitment to it and a minimum entry point ( a minimum amount of changes you need to introduce all at once) for it to work. You wouldn't build a chair with 2 legs, would you? Once this framework is in place, then you can tailor it to your group needs, formalizing further agreements and setting up further structures only if needed. If you add too many useless pillows to the chair it will collapse.
Like everything in life: no pain, no gain. This must be crystal clear in order to make the transition process intentional.

Thanks for reading this raw and rumbling article, which I see mostly as an attempt of self-therapy :-) I shut up now, but a new piece on behavioural psycology and governance is on the pipeline... Be warned!