Pattern for Agile Organizations

What is Sociocracy 3.0?

Sociocracy 3.0 - a.k.a. "S3" - is social technology for evolving agile and resilient organizations at any size, from small start-ups to large international networks and multi-agency collaboration.

Inside this practical guide you'll discover a comprehensive collection of tried and tested concepts, principles and practices for improving performance, engagement and wellbeing in organizations.

Since its launch in 2015, S3 patterns have been helping people across a diverse range of organizational contexts to get the best out of collaboration. From start-ups to small and medium businesses, large international organizations, investor-funded and nonprofit organizations, families and communities.

Using S3 can help you to achieve your objectives and successfully navigate complexity. You can make changes one step at a time, without the need for sudden radical reorganization or planning a long-term change initiative:

• Simply start with identifying your areas of greatest need and select one or more practices or guidelines that help.
• Proceed at your own pace, and develop your skills and competences as you go.
  

Regardless of your position in the organization, you'll find many proven ideas that are relevant and helpful for you.

Sociocracy 3.0 is free, and licensed under a Creative Commons Free Culture License.

Source: Bernhard Bockelbrink, https://patterns.sociocracy30.org/what-is-s3.html
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.

How does Sociocracy 3.0 help?

S3 is a transformational technology for both individuals and the whole organization that will help you figure out how to meet your organization's biggest challenges, take advantage of the opportunities you face and resolve the most persistent problems.

Sociocracy 3.0 is designed to be flexible and supports experimentation and learning. You can take whatever you need, adapt things to suit your context and enrich your existing approach.

S3 integrates core concepts and practices found in agile methodologies, lean management, Kanban (and KMM), Design Thinking, Teal Organizations and the family of sociocracy-based governance methods (SCM/Dynamic Governance, Holacracy® etc.). It's complimentary and compatible with any agile or lean framework, including but not limited to Scrum and its various scaling frameworks.

A pattern-based approach to organizational change

S3 offers a pattern-based approach to organizational change.

A pattern is a process, practice or guideline that serves as a template for successfully responding to a specific kind of challenge or opportunity. S3 patterns are discovered through observing people working together in organizations to solve problems and respond to opportunities they face. When you find that your habitual ways of doing things fail to bring about the outcomes you expected or hope for, you can look to S3 for patterns that might help.

Patterns are modular and adaptable, can be used independently, and are mutually reinforcing, complementing one another when used in combination. S3 patterns can be evolved and adapted to address your specific needs.

In this guide, the patterns are grouped by topic into ten categories to help you more easily identify those that are useful to you:

• Co-Creation And Evolution
• Peer Development
• Enablers Of Collaboration
• Building Organizations
• Bringing In S3
• Defining Agreements
• Focused Interactions
• Meeting Practices
• Organizing Work
• Organizational Structure
  

By providing a menu of patterns to choose from according to need, S3 encourages an organic, iterative approach to change without a huge upfront investment. It meets people where they are and helps them move forward pulling in patterns at their own pace and according to their unique context.

What's in this guide?

Inside this practical guide book you'll discover:

• Useful concepts that will help you make more sense of your organization and communicate effectively about where change is needed.
• An organic, iterative approach to change that meets people where they are and helps them move forward at their own pace and according to their unique context and needs.
• Seven core principles of agile and sociocratic collaboration
• A coherent collection of 70+ practices and guidelines to help you navigate complexity, and improve collaboration:
• Simple, facilitated formats that support teams in drawing on the collective intelligence of the group and incrementally processing available information into continuous improvement of work processes, products, services and skills.
• Group-practices to help organizations make the best use of talent they already have, through people supporting each other in building skills, accountability and engagement.
• Simple tools for clarifying who does what, freeing people up to decide and act for themselves as much as possible, within clearly defined constraints that enable experimentation and development.
• Patterns for growing organizational structure beyond hierarchies into flexible, decentralized networks where the flow of information and influence directly supports the creation of value.
• The Common Sense Framework, a tool for making sense of teams and organizations and figuring out how to get started with S3.
• A glossary with explanations for all the terms you might be unfamiliar with.
  

This practical guide to Sociocracy 3.0 is written and published by the three co-developers of Sociocracy 3.0.

True to the mindset behind S3, this book will always be a work in progress that grows and changes as we learn from people who are experimenting with S3 in organizations around the world. Since we started out 5 years ago, we have released several updates per year and we'll continue to do so in the years to come.

Even though several sections in this book are brief and may still be rough around the edges, the content and explanations have been sufficient for many people to get started with S3 and achieve positive change in their organizations. We hope you'll find it useful too.

Influences and History of Sociocracy 3.0

The literal meaning of the term sociocracy is "rule of the companions": socio - from Latin socius - means "companion", or "friend", and the suffix -cracy - from Ancient Greek κράτος (krátos) - means "power", or "rule".

The word sociocracy can be traced back to 1851, when Auguste Comte suggested applying a scientific approach to society: states would be governed by a body of scientists who are experts on society (which he termed "sociologists"). In his opinion, this future, although not yet achievable, would be inevitable.

A few decades later, Lester Frank Ward, used the word 'sociocracy' to describe the rule of people with relations with each other. Instead of having sociologists at the center, he wanted to give more power and responsibility to the individual, he imagined sociologists in a role as researchers and consultant.

In 1926, the Dutch reformist educator and Quaker Kees Boeke, established a residential school based on the principle of consent. Staff and students were treated as equal participants in the governance of the school, all decisions needed to be acceptable to everyone. He built this version of sociocracy on Quaker principles and practices, and described sociocracy as an evolution of democracy in his 1945 essay "Democracy as it might be".

Gerard Endenburg, also a Quaker and a student in Boeke's school, wanted to apply sociocracy in his family's business, Endenburg Elektrotechniek. He created and evolved the Sociocratic Circle Organisation Method (SCM) (later becoming the "Sociocratic Method"), integrating Boeke's form of sociocracy with engineering and cybernetics. In 1978 Endenburg founded the Sociocratisch Centrum in Utrecht (which is now the Sociocratic Center in Rotterdam) as a means to promote sociocracy in and beyond the Netherlands. Since 1994 organizations in the Netherlands using SCM are exempt from the legal requirement to have a worker's council.

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, several non-Dutch speaking people came across sociocracy, but it wasn't until 2007 when Sharon Villines and John Buck launched their book, “We the People”, that sociocracy became widely accessible to the English speaking world, and from there has began to migrate into several other languages.

Sociocracy has proven to be effective for many organizations and communities around the world, but it has yet to become viral.

In 2014 James Priest and Bernhard Bockelbrink came together to co-create a body of Creative Commons licensed learning resources, synthesizing ideas from Sociocracy, Agile and Lean. They discovered that organizations of all sizes need a flexible menu of practices and structures – appropriate for their specific context – that enable the evolution of a more sociocratic and agile approach to achieve greater effectiveness, coherence, fulfillment and wellbeing. The first version of Sociocracy 3.0. was launched in March 2015.

Liliana David joined the team soon after. Together they regularly collaborate to make S3 available and applicable to as many organizations as possible, and provide resources under a Creative Commons Free Culture License for people who want to learn, apply and tell others about Sociocracy_3.0.

The Sociocracy 3.0 Movement

As interest in Sociocracy 3.0 grows there is a fast growing community of people from a variety of backgrounds - pioneering consultants, coaches, learning facilitators, and people applying S3 into their various contexts - who share appreciation for the transformational potential of Sociocracy 3.0 to help organizations and their members thrive. Many kindly dedicate some of their time to experimenting with and sharing about S3, and who collaborate to learn from one another and document experiences to inform the ongoing development and evolution of the S3 and its various applications.

Why "3.0"?

Sociocracy as a form of governance has been referred to since 1851. Subsequently it has been developed and adapted by many different people and organizations, including Gerard Endenburg, The Sociocracy Group (TSG) and Brian Robertson (HolacracyOne).

Yet, outside the Netherlands sociocracy has until recently remained largely unknown.

We love sociocracy because we see organizations and their members thrive when they use elements of it to enrich or transform what they currently do.

We also love agile, lean, Kanban, the Core Protocols, NVC, and many other ideas too. We believe that the world will be a better place as more organizations learn to pull from this cornucopia of awesome practices that are emerging into the world today, and learn to synthesize them with what they already know.

Therefore we decided to devote some of our time to develop and evolve Sociocracy, integrating it with many of these other potent ideas, to make it available and applicable to as many organizations as possible.

To this end, we recognize the value of a strong identity, a radically different way of distribution, and of adapting the Sociocratic Circle Organization Method to improve its applicability.

The Name

The name "Sociocracy 3.0" demonstrates both respect to the lineage and a significant step forward.

It also helps avoid the perception of us misrepresenting the Sociocratic Circle Organization Method (SCM) as promoted by The Sociocracy Group.

The New Model of Distribution

Sociocracy 3.0 employs a non-centralized model for distribution. This is a paradigm shift in the way sociocracy is brought to people and organizations, and one that many people can relate to.

We support "viral" distribution through two key strategies:

• Sociocracy 3.0 is open: We want to encourage growth of a vibrant ecosystem of applications and flavors of sociocracy, where people share and discuss their insights and the adaptations they are making for their specific context. To this end Sociocracy 3.0 puts emphasis on communicating the underlying principles and explicitly invites the creativity of everyone to remix, extend and adapt things to suit their needs.
• Sociocracy 3.0 is free: To eliminate the barrier of entry for people and organizations we provide free resources under a Creative Commons Free Culture License to learn, practice and teach Sociocracy 3.0. Everyone can use our resources without our explicit permission, even in a commercial context, or as a basis for building their own resources, as long as they share their new resources under the same license. We expect and support other organizations, consultants, coaches, learning facilitators and trainers to follow our example and release their resources too.
  

The Evolution of the Sociocratic Circle Organization Method

Maybe we need to make this explicit: Sociocracy 3.0 is not targeted specifically at the existing community of people exploring the Sociocratic Circle Organization Method, or at The Sociocracy Group (TSG). The Sociocratic Circle Organization Method (SCM) is already well developed and many people appear to be mostly happy with it.

Yet from our direct experience, even for those organizations that have heard about sociocracy, there are many obstacles to actually become invested. With Sociocracy 3.0 we actively work on addressing and eliminating what stands in the way.

Reducing Risk and Resistance

Sociocracy 3.0 meets organizations where they are and takes them on a journey of continuous improvement. There's no radical change or reorganization. Sociocracy 3.0 provides a collection of independent and principle-based patterns that an organization can pull in one by one to become more effective. All patterns relate to a set of core principles, so they can easily be adapted to context.

Shifting Focus From Aim (or Purpose) to Need

Sociocracy 3.0 moves primary focus from vision, mission, aims or purpose, towards the source of motivation, and aligns the organization towards discovering and addressing what it needs. Organizations which are already need-driven, value driven or customer-centric, find this immediately accessible.

Condensed to the Essentials

When looking at the norms, the Sociocratic Circle Organization Method may look big and scary. By focusing on the essentials only, Sociocracy 3.0 offers a lightweight approach to adapt and build on as necessary.

This doesn't mean to say it's all easy: choosing to pull in Sociocracy 3.0's patterns requires an investment in learning and un-learning. This is why it's important to only pull in what you need, because there's no point to changing things if what you are doing is already good enough.

Integration With Agile and Lean Thinking

The Sociocratic Circle Organization Method is an "empty" method when it comes to operations and creating a culture of close collaboration. Many organizations already implement or show preference for lean and agile thinking for operations and collaboration. We believe this is a great idea, so Sociocracy 3.0 is designed for easy adoption into lean and agile organizations.

A New Way to Evolve Organizational Structure

The organizational structure according to the Sociocratic Circle Organization Method is modeled on a hierarchy of domains. We see an increasing emergence of collaborative multi-stakeholder environments and the need for a wider variety of patterns for organizational structure. Evolution of organizational structure happens naturally when the flow of information and influence in an organization is incrementally aligned to the flow of value. Sociocracy 3.0 provides a variety of structural patterns that can be combined to evolve structure as required and in a flexible way.

The Seven Principles

Sociocracy 3.0 is built on seven foundational principles which enable sociocratic and agile collaboration. Since the seven principles are reflected in all of the patterns, understanding these principles is helpful for adopting and paramount to adapting Sociocracy 3.0 patterns.

Practicing Sociocracy 3.0 helps people appreciate the essential value that these core principles bring – both to individuals and to organizations – and supports their integration into organizational culture.

The Principle of Effectiveness: Devote time only to what brings you closer toward achieving your objectives, so that you can make the best use of your limited time, energy and resources.

The Principle of Consent: Raise, seek out and resolve objections to decisions and actions, so that you can reduce the potential for undesirable consequences and discover worthwhile ways to improve.

The Principle of Empiricism: Test all assumptions you rely on, through experiments and continuous revision, so that you learn fast, make sense of things and navigate complexity as effectively as you can.

The Principle of Continuous Improvement: Change incrementally to accommodate steady empirical learning, so that you can adapt to changes when necessary, and maintain or improve effectiveness over time.

The Principle of Equivalence: Involve people in making and evolving decisions that affect them, so that you increase engagement and accountability, and make use of the distributed intelligence toward achieving and evolving your objectives.

The Principle of Transparency: Record all information that is valuable for the organization, and make it accessible to everyone, unless there is a reason for confidentiality, so that everyone has the information they need to understand how to do their work in a way that contributes most effectively to the whole.

The Principle of Accountability: Respond when something is needed, do what you agreed to do, and take ownership for the course of the organization, so that what needs doing gets done, nothing is overlooked and everyone does what they can to contribute toward the effectiveness and integrity of the organization.

The Principle of Effectiveness

Devote time only to what brings you closer towards achieving your organization's overall objectives, so that you can make the best use of your limited time, energy and resources.

The principle of effectiveness invites us to think consciously about what we do and how we do things. It calls for the intentional consideration of the consequences of our actions, both now and across time, on our organizations but also on the wider environment and the world at large.

Pursuing effectiveness requires that we act with intent to minimize waste, remove impediments and, where possible, conduct ourselves in ways that over time, lead to the greatest value creation possible, through the synergy of our creativity, resources, energy and time.

Clarify the why

Being effective begins with getting clear about why you want to do something and establishing an approximate idea of what it is you want to achieve. Defining why the organization exists and the objectives it's trying to achieve helps everyone understand more about what they are working toward and about how they can contribute in a meaningful way. Without this clarity, it's hard for individuals to contextualize their work in the bigger picture. It's also harder to qualify and quantify what brings value and in which ways.

Keep your options open

There might be many ways to go about achieving your objectives and sometimes your first choice might fail to meet the need. Keep your options open to avoid getting stuck in a particular trajectory as you learn about ways to improve. Avoid converging too soon and take an iterative approach whenever you can. In complexity, find ways to test any hypotheses quickly, run multiple small experiments if possible, and travel light so that you can pivot fast.

Aim for being effective in an efficient way

Effectiveness is about achieving the desired result, while efficiency is about doing things with the least waste of your effort, resources and time. It is entirely possible to do the "wrong" thing very efficiently, so before optimizing for efficiency, ensure the outcome is what you intended. Only then look for worthwhile improvements to produce the same outcome in a more efficient manner.

Consider the bigger picture, monitor, evaluate and learn

Be on the lookout for possible side-effects and unintended consequences before, during and after any interventions you make. Consider direct and indirect costs and negative externalities and be prepared to evolve or change your activities or objectives, based on what you learn.

There are scales of effectiveness (and efficiency) that can only be appreciated if we consider the wider context and consequences of our actions across time. Sometimes our activities might achieve the outcomes we intended in the short term but with unfavorable consequences and hidden costs that only reveal themselves across time. For example, large scale, industrial agriculture produces huge yields very efficiently but over the long-term it leads to a critical depletion of topsoil and increasing dependency on fertilizers, insecticides and weedkillers. This can be a case of a short term gain but for long term pain.

In complex environments it is sometimes hard to figure out what effectiveness would actually mean. Consider the perspective of others, even if you are making a decision for yourself. Make the most of experience and expertise distributed throughout your organization and reach out to people with alternative points of view. Running your ideas past others can help you to avoid consequences that you'd rather avoid, and identify worthwhile ways to improve.

Decide how you will measure effectiveness, and if you're collaborating with others, develop and maintain a shared understanding of what this will mean. Having established a clear "why" and defined the outcome you intend to achieve, consider how you will measure results in a way that allows you to see how you're progressing (and whether anything you are doing is useful at all!)

Effectiveness can sometimes only be determined in retrospect. Pay attention to and reflect on the consequences of your actions, and then use what you learn to improve your effectiveness next time.

Be mindful of dependencies and constraints

Aim to free everyone up to be able to act as autonomously as possible and do what you need to do to free yourself up as well. Make any necessary dependencies between certain individuals and teams explicit, and get together to co-create and evolve a coherent system to deal with them, so that you can still deliver value fast when dependencies cannot be avoided.

Clarify any constraints in which you need to operate. What are the internal and external expectations, guidelines or rules? How do the implicit or explicit values of your organization and the wider context in which you are operating, enable or limit the decisions and actions you make? How will you operate within any specific boundaries? Who do you need to communicate with if you see an argument for changing something, or for making an exception to a rule?

Prioritize and choose wisely

Set priorities and stick to them unless you become aware of a reason to change. Distractions, context switching and a lack of breaks or slack time will inevitably lead to waste.

As well as getting clear on what you WILL do, be clear on what NOT to do as well and aim to resolve impediments as they arise.

The Principle of Consent

Raise, seek out and resolve objections to decisions and actions, so that you can reduce the potential for undesirable consequences and discover worthwhile ways to improve.

Deliberately seeking objections is a way to tap into the collective intelligence distributed throughout an organization and benefit from insights we might otherwise miss. Examining proposals, decisions and activity through the lens of different people's perspectives helps to identify reasons why a decision or activity could lead to consequences that would better be avoided, and if there are worthwhile ways to improve things.

Adopting the principle of consent invites a change of focus in decision-making, shifting intent from trying to reach agreement - can everyone agree with this? - toward the practice of deliberately checking for objections - are there any arguments that reveal why this is not good enough, safe enough or that there are worthwhile ways to improve?

Consent does not mean everyone is actively involved in making every decision, as this would be ineffective. Instead it's useful to make decisions that, over time, free people up as much as possible to decide and act to create value by themselves. It does however require adequate transparency and mindfulness on the part of decision makers, to inform and involve people who would be impacted (to varying degrees), or to invite those that can bring relevant experience or expertise (see the Principle of Equivalence).

Invite dissent

When dealing with complexity, considering different perspectives, experience and expertise is a simple yet effective way for developing a coherent shared understanding, out of which more effective decisions can be made.

Developing a culture that welcomes dissenting opinions and where people consider those opinions to discover any value they can bring generates greater engagement, psychological safety and support for decisions.

Shift supremacy from people to sound arguments

When comparing the available paradigms for decision-making, the essential difference lies in where ultimate authority for making a decision is placed. In autocratic systems supremacy lies with an individual or small group. In a system governed by majority vote, supremacy lies with the majority (or those who can convince the majority of their position). In a system aspiring toward consensus with unanimity, supremacy lies with whoever decides to block a proposal or existing agreement. In all three of these cases, a decision is made regardless of whether the motive of those actors is aligned with the interest of the system or not.

When a group or organization adopts the principle of consent, supremacy shifts from any specific individual or group, to reasoned arguments that reveal the potential for undesirable consequences that would better be avoided or worthwhile ways to improve. This way, people - regardless of their position, rank, function or role—are unable to block decisions based solely on opinion, personal preference or rank. Consent invites everyone to at least be reasonable, while still leaving space for individuals to express diverse perspectives, opinions and ideas.

Distinguish between opinion or preference, and objections

Consent draws on the intelligence distributed throughout an organization, not only by inviting people to raise possible objections, but also by inviting people to then examine those arguments, rooting out any that are unfounded, evolving those they discover to be only partly true, and revealing those that are valid objections. So it's typically a good idea to test arguments qualify as objections and only act on those that do. This helps avoid wasting time on arguments based merely on opinions, personal preference or bias.

Arguments that qualify as objections - at least as far as stakeholders can tell - help a group in directing their effort toward making changes in those areas where it's necessary or worthwhile to adapt and improve. Incremental improvement based on discovery and learning is built into consent and is an inevitable consequence of adopting the principle.

Adopting the principle of consent shifts the aim of decision-making towards identifying a solution that's good enough for now, and where there are no obvious worthwhile improvements that would justify spending more time. This approach is far more effective than trying to arrive at consensus with unanimity, where the aim is to accommodate everyone's personal preference and ideas.

Integrate learning from objections

Objections inform people of things that can be improved. Resolving objections typically means evolving (proposed) agreements and changing activity in ways that render that argument void. Sometimes however, there might be a reason why there is more to be gained from leaving things unchanged despite the existence of a valid objection. Ultimately, resolving objections involves weighing up pros and cons of any decision, both in relation to the specific situation a decision is intended to address, but also in the context of the organization as a whole. In complexity there are typically no perfect or entirely correct decisions, only those that (for now at least) appear good enough for now and safe enough to try. Often all that is needed is a good enough next step which allows us to learn empirically and adapt and evolve the decision over time.

This facilitation of natural and incremental learning draws on the diversity of knowledge, experience and expertise distributed throughout an organization. It helps to shift from a paradigm rooted in binary thinking and polarization (either/or) to a continual process of synergy (both/and), which over time fosters stronger relationships between peers as well.

The Implicit Contract of Consent

Adopting the principle of consent in a team, or in the organization as a whole, has implications for how people approach decision-making, dialogue and activity. Consider making this implicit contract of consent explicit, to support members of the organization to adopt and apply the principle of consent:

1. In the absence of objections to an agreement, I intend to follow through on that agreement to the best of my ability.
2. As I become aware of them, I will share any possible objections to (proposed) agreements and activity, with those directly responsible for them.
3. I'll consider objections to proposals, agreements and activity that I'm responsible for, and will work to resolve the objection if I can.
4. I'll actively consider agreements that are due review, to check for any possible objections.

The Principle of Empiricism

Test all assumptions you rely on through experiments and continuous revision, so that you learn fast, make sense of things and navigate complexity as effectively as you can.

Empiricism - the foundation of the scientific method - is an essential principle to embrace if we're to navigate effectively in a complex world. Not only are the environments in which organizations operate complex but an organization is in itself a complex adaptive system. Knowledge about an organizational system and its interactions is often tentative and highly dependent on context.

Empiricism can help us to increase certainty and reduce self-delusion, so that we can make the best use of our time. In our attempts to make sense of things and to have a sense of certainty about what is happening, why it's happening, what should happen next and what's needed to achieve that, we often draw conclusions without checking if the assumptions they are built on are true and accurate. In complexity, what we perceive as causation can often turn out to be mere correlation or coincidence, and the outcomes of interventions we make will always lead to some consequences we couldn't predict.

Observing and probing systems, and making use of experimentation to inform an iterative approach to change, supports ongoing learning and helps an organization continuously develop to remain effective and responsive to change.

Clarify your hypothesis

A hypothesis is a tentative explanation of a relationship between a specific cause and effect that is both testable and falsifiable. It provides a starting point for experiments that prove or disprove that hypothesis.

In the context of organizations, you might develop hypotheses about how a change to a work process or to the organizational structure would improve effectiveness or reduce cost. Or about how rescheduling a meeting would increase engagement, or making a certain change to a product would attract a new customer segment while keeping existing customers happy, and so on.

When faced with uncertainty, it helps to make any questions and assumptions you have explicit and describe a clear hypothesis that allows for answering those questions and validating if your assumptions are true. A vague or ambiguous description will make assumptions hard or even impossible to test, and trying to test too many assumptions at once, might set you up on a long path where you learn little of value. Less is often more.

One vital skill to develop when designing experiments is the ability to distinguish between established knowledge and mere assumptions. By acknowledging what you don't know yet and what you assume to be more or less true, you can identify questions and assumptions around which to build a hypothesis.

In complex domains, a hypothesis-driven approach relies on experiments to validate or disprove hypotheses, so that you can find viable ideas or falsify them fast. Making sense of things through experimentation, not only enables you to more effectively achieve what you need or desire but it can also help you to validate assumptions you have about which objectives are worthwhile pursuing to start with.

Design good experiments

An experiment is a controlled test designed to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Experiments provide you with validated learning about how to better respond to the challenges and opportunities you face. Outcomes often provide you with the opportunity to refine your hypothesis, or even develop new hypotheses that you can then test with further experiments.

Before you start an experiment, it's important to fully define and document it. In the context of an organization, a good experiment will consist of a list of things you need to do, and if helpful, how you need to do them, as well as a list of variables you will track before, during and/or after the experiment.

Define and document specific thresholds for success and failure of the experiment related to your variables and add details about this to your evaluation criteria. In particular, consider what you would accept as evidence that your hypothesis is false. While an experiment is running, avoid making changes to it, and if you do change something, document those changes, otherwise your measurements may become meaningless. It is vital that you measure before starting the experiment to ensure that the threshold for success is not already met because you made an error in your experiment's design.

Treat decisions as experiments

In a complex system, it is impossible to predict all of the ways in which that system will react to a particular intervention of change. Because of this you can apply the concept of experimentation to the way you approach decision-making as well. It's valuable to view all significant operational and governance decisions you make as experiments, and to document the intended outcome and evaluation criteria in each case. Make one decision at a time, starting with what appears to be an appropriate or logical starting point and evolve those decisions iteratively, based on what you learn.

The Principle of Continuous Improvement

Regularly review the outcome of what you are doing, and then make incremental improvements to what you do and how you do it based on what you learn, so that you can adapt to changes when necessary, and maintain or improve effectiveness over time.

Whereas the principles of Empiricism and Consent reveal opportunities for learning, Continuous Improvement relates to what we do with what we learn. Continuous Improvement applies to how we conduct our operations, but also to governance. Everything from the evolution of strategies, policy, processes and guidelines, to the development of products, services, competencies and skills, attitudes and behavior, chosen values and tools, all can be continuously improved.

Take an iterative approach to change

Evolution is often more effective and more sustainable than revolution which is rarely necessary or worthwhile unless you fail to continuously improve a system when it's needed. Especially in a complex environment, making many changes to a system at the same time can lead to a mess that is difficult to fix. Consequences resulting from larger interventions are often hard to measure effectively, especially in complexity, and the relationship between cause and effect will be difficult, if not impossible to determine and evaluate.

Instead, consider changing things incrementally whenever you see an opportunity for a small and worthwhile improvement, significantly reducing the need for a large intervention. This will help you to effectively adapt to changing environments, keep your organization and systems fit for purpose, and prevent things from descending into a state that is costly or even impossible to repair.

Even when a large change is needed, go step by step, figuring out how things need to be and adjust what you're doing based on what you learn. With small changes, assumptions can be tested quickly and failure is more manageable. When a small experiment fails, you can learn fast and if necessary, use what you learn to develop a better experiment. When a large experiment fails, a lot of time and effort might be spent without learning much at all.

Be aware that if you change several things at the same time, you might not be able to determine which of them lead to the effects you see, so aim for one or only a few concurrent changes at a time.

Monitor, measure and change things based on what you learn

Define the intended outcomes you expect a change will lead to and be clear on how you will evaluate whatever occurs. When making changes, be clear about the specifics of what you want to improve. What positive consequences do you want to amplify and what negative consequences do you want to dampen?

Monitor the consequences of your actions and reflect on what you learn. Pay attention to what actually happens and whether or not the results of your interventions reflect your assumptions and intentions. This will help you keep track of whether or not your changes led to improvements at all.

Remember that even if things don't turn out as you expect sometimes, this doesn't necessarily mean that the results are negative. Sometimes things turn out differently to how we'd assumed or intended. All outcomes help us learn. Be open to whatever happens, consider the pros and cons of any unintended consequences that emerge and acknowledge when it would be beneficial to do things differently, or to aim for different results.

The Principle of Equivalence

Involve people in making and evolving decisions that affect them, so that you increase engagement and accountability, and make use of the distributed intelligence toward achieving and evolving your objectives.

Equivalence is important in organizational systems, precisely because people are not equal to one other in a variety of ways and depending on the context.

Equivalence increases engagement by giving people affected by decisions the opportunity to influence those decisions to some degree.

By including people in making and evolving a decision that affects them, they gain deeper understanding about the resulting decision, the situation it's intended to address, and the pros and cons that have been weighed in the process. It also helps to keep systems more open and transparent and reduces the potential for information vital to the decision being overlooked or ignored. Depending on the level of involvement, people might also have the opportunity to shape things according to their preference, and in any case, participation in the decision-making leads to a greater sense of ownership over what is decided.

People are more likely to take responsibility for following through on decisions when they are involved in making them. This is further reinforced when ensuring affected parties have influence in adapting those decisions later, should they discover reasons why a decision is no longer good enough, or if they discover a viable way for improving something.

Decisions we develop together will always be 'our' decisions, whereas decisions taken by others, will always be 'theirs' and will be appreciated and supported more or less by others, depending on their personal preference and point of view.

Some decisions will affect a large group of people, e.g. an entire department, or even the organization as a whole. Including those affected in the decision-making process will yield benefits that reach far beyond the decision in question. People will build connection, trust and a greater sense of community and belonging. For effectively involving a large number of stakeholders in the decision-making process you can use a variety of group facilitation techniques and online tools.

Delegate responsibility and power to influence

To become or remain effective, organizations of any size benefit from distributing work, and the power to influence decisions relating to that work, throughout the organization. This helps to eliminate unnecessary dependencies, so that people can create value unimpeded, without getting bottlenecked, waiting on a decision-making hierarchy or the input of others who are more distant from the work.

For matters that concern a large number of people, it makes sense to delegate responsibility for making and evolving agreements to a smaller group that has the necessary experience and expertise, who can then inform and consult with others in the organization during their decision-making process. With adequate transparency and some proactivity in informing people affected by decisions of anything that is useful for them to know, possible objections from all stakeholders can still be quickly identified, qualified, and if necessary, resolved. In this way, equivalence enables the delegation of responsibilities to individuals or small groups, while still keeping the whole system open to discover and draw on the collective intelligence of everyone involved.

Periodically rotating who takes a lead in decision-making helps build trust, accountability and a more widely shared understanding of the context in which decisions are being made, because a growing number of people will gain experience in that role.

Consider who should be involved and how

Everyone throughout an organization is impacted by all decisions to some degree, because each decision will impact the whole in some way. Equivalence in decision-making doesn't mean everyone needs to be involved in every decision all of the time. Nor does it mean that everyone has to have the same amount of influence in every context where they are affected. Equivalence means ensuring that those affected by decisions are at least able to influence those decisions, on the basis of arguments that reveal unintended consequences for the organization that are preferable to avoid, and/or worthwhile ways for how things can be improved. Put another way, the minimum requirement for equivalence to exist is to hear and consider any possible objections raised by people affected by decisions, and work to ensure that those objections are resolved.

The degree of worthwhile involvement is context dependent. At one end of the spectrum, it might be enough that decisions affecting others are made initially by an individual or a smaller group and that these decisions are then tested for any objections with those affected afterwards. On the other end of the spectrum, equivalence could manifest as a fully collaborative process where those affected participate in decision-making from end-to-end. A middle road is a participatory approach that keeps people informed about progress and invites specific input at various stages along the way.

Equivalence needs to be balanced with Effectiveness, enabled through Transparency and constrained by Consent, for it to function at its best. It's valuable to weigh up the benefits of more or less involvement, versus the cost in terms of resources, energy and time.

For any decision of significance it's good to ask yourself who, if anyone, should be involved, and to what degree? Consider those who will be directly or indirectly impacted and those who will have responsibility for acting on what you decide. While not directly related to Equivalence, it might also be prudent to consider those who are not obviously affected by a decision, but who could contribute with their influence, experience and expertise.

Make necessary information available

For people to contribute in an effective way, they need access to relevant information relating to the decision in question. It's helpful to develop a system for visualizing important decisions and broadcasting about them to others. Visibility and the option for open dialogue about what's going on in the organization helps to build shared understanding, which, in turn, contributes toward more effective decisions being made.

Invest in learning and development

When involving people in decision-making, everyone understanding what objections are – and how they are distinct from concerns, opinion or preference – will help people contribute to decisions in more meaningful and effective ways. Put in place ways to gather any possible objections that people raise and develop a system to easily make them available to the people directly responsible for making and evolving those decisions.

In the case where people are responsible for making and evolving agreements together on a regular basis, invest in everyone developing the necessary competence and skills. This includes learning basic communication skills and developing fluency in whichever decision-making processes you use.

Invite external influence

Some decision-making will be improved through including a range of perspectives and expertise. When looking for people with a worthwhile perspective to bring, consider the wider organization and your external environment too. Who has valuable expertise or experience from elsewhere in the organization and who are your customers, investors and other stakeholders? All of these people are affected in some way by the consequences of decisions you make. As well as being open to consider their suggestions and points of view, there might be times when actively inviting their opinion or involving them in certain decisions you need to make, will inform you of better ways to achieve your goals.

The Principle of Transparency

Record all information that is valuable for the organization and make it accessible to everyone in the organization, unless there is a reason for confidentiality, so that everyone has the information they need to understand how to do their work in a way that contributes most effectively to the whole.

Transparency in an organization helps people understand what's going on, what to expect and why things are done the way they are. It reduces uncertainty, supports trust and trustworthiness and fosters accountability.

Adequate transparency means that people either have direct access to the information they need, or that they at least know where to go or who to ask, to get access to it. Transparency helps everyone understand when they can safely and effectively decide and act for themselves and when they need to involve others to respond to dependencies they share.

Transparency supports us to learn from, and with each other. It helps to reduce the potential of small problems growing into big ones because we are more likely to spot mistakes and negative unintended consequences more promptly.

Transparency facilitates the ongoing development and maintenance of a coherent and adaptive learning organization. Having access to relevant information helps us to quickly identify important needs and changes and respond fast.

Clarify motivation for (more) transparency

Transparency is a means to an end, not an end in itself, so if you're looking to increase transparency in your organization, take the time to clarify the reasons why. What are the challenges you are trying to solve by introducing more transparency and/or what are the opportunities you wish to pursue?

Introduce more transparency into your organization as a way to support learning and to free people up, not as a way to control them. Use it as a way to improve performance, not leave people feeling unsafe to do anything because they are anxious about being watched. Transparency can enable co-creation and innovation but in a context where failure is treated as negative, rather than an opportunity to learn, it will impede people's willingness to take risks and experiment.

Consider reasons for confidentiality

Be clear about information that is inappropriate to share. While secrecy can be associated with illicit or dubious affairs, there are many legitimate reasons for confidentiality in organizations. Sometimes secrecy is necessary, for example, protection of people's personal data and affairs, security of assets or protection of intellectual property that helps an organization achieve its goals.

Identify what information is valuable to record and share

Consider carefully what information is worthwhile to record. Valuable information worth recording typically includes:

• decisions that have been made, along with the information they were based upon, who made them and the reasons why they were made
• any information that supports people to make effective decisions, such as details about the context, possibilities explored and any important constraints
• information that helps with evaluating progress and outcomes, including evaluation criteria, metrics, descriptions of intended outcomes and details of any hypotheses upon which decisions are being made
• information that reduces uncertainty and supports the development of trust, such as finances and future plans
• useful insights and learning
• meeting minutes

Create and maintain a coherent system for recording information

Documenting relevant information in a way that is coherent and accessible is an ongoing task that relies on everyone in the organization playing their part. Developing a system for recording and sharing information and keeping it up to date takes time and effort. Choose tools that make it simple to create, update, and cross-reference records, as well as to search and retrieve information when it's required. Make clear which information is recorded and updated, by whom and when, and structure records accordingly. Take the time to regularly check through your records, ensure your system remains helpful and keep an archive of historical information for reference.

The Principle of Accountability

Respond when something is needed, do what you agreed to do, and accept your share of responsibility for the course of the organization, so that what needs doing gets done, nothing is overlooked and everyone does what they can to contribute toward the effectiveness and integrity of the organization.

Whenever we are part of a system (e.g. an organization, a community, family or state) the consequence of our actions or inaction will impact others in that same system for better or worse. Therefore we carry a certain amount of responsibility for the wellbeing of the system.

In particular, when we choose to become part of an organization, we enter into a transactional relationship with others, where we can expect to receive something in exchange for taking care of one or more specific needs the organization has.

The promise we make to take responsibility for things that need doing, creates a dependency between us and those who depend on the fulfillment of that promise.

Acknowledge shared accountability

The consequences of our action or inaction will affect the organization in some way, so by becoming part of an organization we are taking some responsibility for the wellbeing of the whole. Many responsibilities within an organization are hard to anticipate, are undefined and are undelegated. Therefore when members of an organization recognize that they share accountability for the organization as a whole, they are more inclined to step up, bring attention to important issues, and take responsibility for things when needed. Problems and opportunities are more likely to be acknowledged and dealt with and you reduce the risk of developing a culture of looking the other way, or worse, a culture of blame.

Many responsibilities are typically distributed throughout an organization by way of delegation, meaning that people take responsibility for specific work and decision-making. Whenever a responsibility is delegated by one party (the delegator) to another party (the delegatee), accountability for results is shared between both parties. This is because either parties' choices and actions (or inaction) will impact results. Furthermore the delegator is accountable for their decision to delegate these responsibilities, and for their decision about whom to delegate them to.

While it's typically productive for delegatee(s) to take the lead in deciding how to take care of their domain, regular communication between delegator and delegatee(s) provides a broader scope of perspective which in turn, supports strategic development and the effective execution of work.

When people consider themselves accountable only for those things that impact their immediate sphere of responsibility, many of the things that would require attention but have not been delegated to anyone in particular, or that appear to be someone else's problem to solve, would get missed.

Whenever you see an important issue, make sure it's taken care of, either by bringing it to the attention of others who will deal with it, or by dealing with it yourself.

Make the hierarchy of accountability explicit

Most organizations have a hierarchy of delegation and therefore a hierarchy of accountability. This means that accountability for outcomes is distributed throughout the organization, while overall accountability for the integrity of the organization rests with whomever takes legal responsibility for that organization as a whole. In many organizations today, this generally points back up a leadership hierarchy to wherever the buck stops. However, in other contexts, like a community for example, overall accountability lies equally with everyone who is involved.

Whatever your particular organizational context, making the hierarchy of accountability explicit is useful because it reveals the relationship between delegator and delegatee(s).

Move from "holding to account" to self-accountability

The principle of accountability applies to everyone. It promotes a shift from being held to account by someone - which often leads to a culture of fear and blame - towards a culture of self-accountability where everyone acknowledges the impact of their actions and inaction on others, and on the system as a whole, and acts accordingly. In your relationships with others, it relates to making and following through on commitments you make, managing expectations, doing what you agree to and answering for when you don't.

Create conditions that enable accountability to thrive

Merely clarifying what people can and cannot do is not enough to encourage a culture where accountability is embraced. In fact, alone, this can have the opposite effect. To increase the level of self-accountability in an organization there are various factors that can help:

• Involvement: the more that people are able to influence decisions that affect them, the greater their sense of ownership will be, and the greater the likelihood that they will share a sense of accountability for the results (see also: The Principle of Equivalence)
• Access to information: when people have the opportunity to find out what is going on in the organization and why certain decisions are made, they can figure out how they can best contribute to the whole and be an active and artful member of the organization (see also: The Principle of Transparency)
• Safety to disagree: when people are free to express their opinions and learn how to listen and disagree in constructive ways, the organization can rely on a broader scope of perspectives, experiences and expertise, and people will feel more psychologically safe and in control. (see also: The Principle of Consent)

Make implicit responsibilities explicit

When responsibilities are unclear, it can lead to mistaken assumptions about who is responsible for what, double work, people crossing important boundaries, or failing to take action in response to important situations. At the same time, when clarifying responsibilities, it's important to avoid over-constraining people because doing so limits their ability to make important decisions, innovate and act. This leads to a reduction in their willingness to accept accountability.

Too much specificity or too much ambiguity around the scope of authority people have to influence can lead to hesitation and waste. And in the worst case it can mean that important things don't get dealt with at all.

Clarifying domains provides a way of explicitly delineating areas of responsibilities and defining where the edge to people's autonomy lies.

Encourage self-accountability

To encourage a culture with a high level of self-accountability, do your part in creating a working environment where people voluntarily take on the following responsibilities:

• Act within the constraints of any agreements governing domains you are responsible for, that includes agreements related to the organization itself, to the teams you are part of, and to the roles you keep.
• Act in accordance with any explicitly defined organizational values.
• Be transparent and proactive in communicating with those you share accountability with, if you realize that what you agreed to is not the best course of action.
• Find others who can help you if you discover you're unable to take care of your responsibilities.
• Break agreements when you are certain the benefit to the organization outweighs the cost of waiting to amend that agreement first. And take responsibility for any consequences, including following up as soon as possible with those affected.
• Speak up if you disagree with something or think it can be improved in a worthwhile way, by raising possible objections as soon as you become aware of them.
• Be proactive in responding to situations that could help or harm the organization, either by dealing with them yourself directly, or by finding the people who can, and letting them know.
• Aim to give your best contribution, both through the work you are doing and in how you cooperate or directly collaborate with others.
• Take responsibility for your ongoing learning and development, and support others to do the same.

Key Concepts for Making Sense of Organizations

In this section you'll learn about the following key concepts:

• Driver
• Domain
• Agreement
• Objection
• Governance and Operations
  

You will also discover how these concepts relate to value (and waste), delegation (and accountability), self-organization, self-governance and semi-autonomy.

When people understand these concepts, it gives them a common language for describing clearly what's going on in the organization. This helps to increase shared understanding and enables constructive dialogue about what needs to be done.

For any terms you don't understand, check out the glossary at the end.

Drivers

A driver is a person’s or a group’s motive for responding to a specific situation.

Drivers:

• can be used to derive goals, objectives, aims, mission, vision, purpose
• can change over time

Drivers, Value and Waste

Value is the importance, worth or usefulness of something in relation to a driver.

Waste is anything unnecessary for - or standing in the way of - a (more) effective response to a driver.

By adopting the concept of value and waste, many practices and ideas from lean production and lean software development can be utilized by organizations pulling in S3 patterns:

• value stream mapping
• various strategies for eliminating waste
• the Kanban Method

Domains

A domain is a distinct area of influence, activity and decision making within an organization.

To make better use of their limited time, energy, and resources, people in organizations distribute work between them by creating roles or forming teams, units, or departments. In the process they are explicitly or implicitly defining domains - distinct areas of responsibility and autonomy. All domains are within the overall domain of an organization and may overlap and/or be fully contained within other domains.

Any role or team's purpose is to contribute towards the overall purpose of the organization by taking care of a specific organizational need. Inadequately defined domains typically lead to stakeholders having different assumptions about areas of responsibility and autonomy. As a consequence, both collaboration and distribution of work suffers because of missed dependencies, double work, or work not done at all.

Clarifying domains makes the contract between the delegator (who delegate responsibility for a domain) and the delegatee(s) (to whom the domain is delegated) explicit, which enables everyone to learn about what works and what doesn't, and to understand who is responsible for what. A clear domain description with a reasonable amount of detail is a necessary prerequisite for people to successfully evaluate and continuously improve their work.

Evaluate and evolve domains regularly

People's understanding of the organization is limited and the environment is always changing. Therefore it is essential that delegator, delegatee(s) and other relevant stakeholders regularly take the time to evaluate and evolve both the design of the domain and how people account for it as their understanding of the domain deepens.

People might do a great job of accounting for a domain in the way it's designed, but the design of the domain might be primitive or flawed. On the other hand, even if the design of a domain is poor in the first iteration, through this process it will improve over time.

Delegating Responsibility for Domains

Delegation is the grant of authority by one party (the _delegator) to another (the delegatee) to account for a domain (i.e. to do certain things and/or to make certain decisions),for which the delegator maintains overall accountability.

Responsibility for domains is delegated to groups or individuals, who then act within its defined constraints on their autonomy and influence.

When a domain is delegated to a group of people, they become a team, when it's delegated to an individual, they become a role keeper.

The delegatee(s) may do whatever they think will help them achieve their purpose, unless it is outside the domain of the organization, explicitly forbidden, they violate somebody else's (explicit) domain, or impede other people's contribution to the organization in some other way.

Note: Things that are forbidden include explicit constraints laid out in the domain description, any other agreements the delegatee(s) need to keep, and legal and regulatory requirements.

The delegator still retains overall accountability for that domain, allocates resources and often defines:

• the organizational need the domain is designed to respond to
• key responsibilities (key deliverables, any critical risks to manage, other essential work and decision making being delegated)
• constraints to the autonomy and influence of the delegatee(s), usually related to the organization itself (dependencies, involvement of the delegator, reporting etc.)

Drivers and Domains

It's also possible to understand a domain in relation to organizational drivers:

• the domain's primary driver - the main driver the delegatee(s) respond to
• the set of subdrivers the organization may benefit from addressing when responding to the domain's primary driver, which include:
• key responsibilities (any driver following directly from the domain's primary driver)
• dependencies and external constraints (drivers relating to other domains or to the environment beyond the organization) that constrain the delegatees' autonomy
  

Objections

An objection is an argument relating to a (proposed) agreement or activity that reveals unintended consequences you'd rather avoid, or that demonstrates worthwhile ways to improve.

You can think of objections as a simple tool for harvesting distributed intelligence and improving decision-making.

Be aware that withholding objections can harm the ability of individuals, teams or the whole organization to achieve their objectives.

It's the responsibility of each individual in an organization to raise potential objections to proposals, decisions, existing agreements or activities.

Those accountable for an activity or (proposed) agreement in question, are responsible for considering arguments and addressing objections that are raised, when doing so will help to meet the organization's objectives.

When seeking out potential objections, consider:

• why the intended outcome would not be (fully) achieved: effectiveness
• why it would be wasteful to proceed as proposed (or previously agreed): efficiency
• the negative consequences something would have elsewhere (in the same domain, in the wider organization, or beyond): side-effects

The information revealed by objections can be used to improve:

• current and planned activity
• how people execute on decisions
• existing agreements
• proposals
• shared understanding of drivers
  

Create a culture where people feel comfortable to raise potential objections at any time, so that they can relax into making decisions that are good enough for now and safe enough to try. This encourages developing a preference for trying things out, instead of attempting to anticipate and account for all possibilities in advance.

Harness a diversity of perspectives and be open to challenge your own, to discover when and what to change, and enjoy iterating more rapidly, running experiments and learning from the outcomes as you proceed.

Concerns

Not all arguments raised are objections, but they might reveal concerns:.

A concern is an assumption that cannot (for now at least) be backed up by reasoning or enough evidence to prove its relevance or validity to those who are considering it.

Concerns can still inform people of ways to further evolve agreements, including making changes to an agreement that alleviates the concern, adding certain evaluation criteria, or adjusting the frequency of the evaluation. Bring up concerns if you think it’s valuable to consider them.

Determining whether an argument is an objection or concern is sometimes dependent on context.

If in doubt about whether you have an objection or a concern, be proactive and check with others to see what they think too. (see Test Arguments Qualify as Objections).

Agreements

An agreement is an agreed upon guideline, process, protocol or policy designed to guide the flow of value.

Shared guidelines about why, how and when to act, and what is specifically required, enable effective collaboration.

Agreements are created in response to organizational drivers, are regularly reviewed and evolved as necessary.

Overall accountability for an agreement lies with the people that make them.

An agreement can include delegation of specific responsibilities to individuals or groups.

Governance and Operations

• Work processes
• Policies and procedures about how people work together
• Organizational structure:
  • Distributing responsibilities and power to influence by designing domains and selecting people to account for them
  • Accounting for dependencies between teams
• Distribution of resources
• Strategy (for the whole organization, for a team, product or role),
• Priorities and objectives
• Consequential decisions about products, services, tools, technology, security etc.

• in dedicated governance meetings that are scheduled on a regular basis
• on the fly, during the working day
• in a one-off meeting to deal with a specific topic
• in other types of meetings such as product meetings, planning meetings or retrospectives, etc.

Related Concepts

The Patterns

S3 offers a pattern-based approach to organizational change.

A pattern is a process, practice or guideline that serves as a template for successfully responding to a specific kind of challenge or opportunity.

Patterns are modular and adaptable, can be used independently, and are mutually reinforcing, complementing one another when used in combination. S3 patterns can be evolved and adapted to address your specific needs.

In this guide, the patterns are grouped by topic into ten categories to help you more easily identify those that are useful to you:

• Sense-Making and Decision-Making
  
• Evolving Organizations
  
• Peer Development
  
• Enablers of Co-Creation
  
• Building Organizations
  
• Bringing in S3
  
• Defining Agreements
  
• Meeting Formats
  
• Meeting Practices
  
• Organizing Work
  
• Organizational Structure

Sense-Making and Decision-Making

Respond to Organizational Drivers

Responses to organizational drivers include:

• direct action (operations)
• organizing how work will be done
• making governance decisions

The response to an organizational driver is typically treated as an experiment that is evaluated and evolved over time.

Qualify Drivers as Organizational Drivers

A driver is a person's or a group's motive for responding to a specific situation. A driver is considered an organizational driver if responding to it would help the organization generate value, eliminate waste or avoid unintended consequences.

A simple way to qualify whether or not a driver falls within an organization's domain is by checking:

Would it help the organization if we respond to this driver? Or would it lead to unintended consequences if we don't?

Navigate via Tension

Pay attention to tension you experience in relation to the organization, investigate the cause and pass on any organizational drivers you discover to the people accountable for the appropriate domain.

Challenges and opportunities for an organization are revealed by people bringing awareness to the reasons why they experience tension.

Note: In this context, a tension is a personal experience: a symptom of dissonance between an individual's perception of a situation, and their expectations (or preferences).

To discover drivers, investigate what stimulates tension, and describe what's happening and what's needed. Sometimes an inquiry reveals misconceptions and the tension goes away.

When passing on a driver to another domain, it is often enough to communicate what is happening and why you think it matters (the effect on the organization). Let those responsible think about what's needed and what to do about it.

Describe Organizational Drivers

Describe organizational drivers to understand, communicate and remember them.

Describing drivers may be done by a group or by an individual. Depending on their perspective, they may decide to explain a driver as a problem to solve or an opportunity to leverage.

A simple way to describe a driver is by explaining:

• What's happening…:
• the current situation
• the effect of this situation on the organization

• …and what's needed:
• the need of the organization in relation to this situation
• the impact of attending to that need
  

Create a brief but comprehensive summary containing just enough information to clearly communicate the need for an action or a decision.

Aim for one or two sentences, so that the information is easy to remember and process.

Besides the summary, more details about the driver may be kept in the logbook.

Example:
"The kitchen is in disorder: there are no clean cups, the sink is full of dishes and it's not possible to quickly grab a coffee and get right back to work. We need the kitchen in a usable state so we can stay focused on our work".

1. Current Situation

"The kitchen is in disorder: there are no clean cups, the sink is full of dishes…"
Describe the current situation:

• Briefly capture the essentials of what is happening, and, if necessary, the context in which it occurs.
• Be objective - describe observations and avoid evaluation.
  

2. Effect

"…it's not possible to quickly grab a coffee and get right back to work".
Explain the effect of this situation on the organization:

• Clarify why the situation needs attention: how does it affect the organization?
• Be explicit about whether the effects are current or anticipated.
• Explain challenges, losses, opportunities or gains.
  

3. Need

"We need the kitchen in a usable state…"

Explain the need of the organization in relation to this situation:

• A need of an organization is anything a team (or individual) requires to effectively account for a domain.
• Be specific on whose need it is ("we need", "they need", "I need").
• If there's disagreement about the need, it helps to zoom out from specific solutions and focus on what the organization is lacking in this situation.
  

4. Impact

"…so we can stay focused on our work".
Describe the impact of attending to that need:

• Explain the intended outcome, potential benefits or opportunities.
• The impact may be obvious or implicit, especially when the effects of the current situation are already described.
  

Review Drivers

Make sure to review drivers on a regular basis, to deepen you understanding of what's happening and needed.
Helpful questions for a review include:

• Is the description of the situation (still) correct?
• Do we still associate the same needs with the situation?
• Is the driver still within our domain?
• Is the driver still relevant?

---

Consent Decision-Making

A (facilitated) group process for decision-making: invite objections, and consider information and knowledge revealed to further evolve proposals or existing agreements.

Consent invites people to (at least) be reasonable and open to opportunities for learning and improvement. When you apply the principle of consent, you are agreeing to intentionally seek out objections.

An objection is an argument – relating to a proposal, agreement, activity or the existing state of affairs – that reveals consequences or risks you'd rather avoid, or demonstrates worthwhile ways to improve.

Proposals become agreements when they are considered good enough for now and safe enough to try until the next review. Objections prevent proposals from becoming agreements, but concerns do not.

Withholding objections can harm the ability of individuals, teams or the whole organization to achieve their objectives.

Not all arguments raised are objections, but they might reveal concerns:

A concern is an assumption that cannot (for now at least) be backed up by reasoning or enough evidence to prove its relevance or validity to those who are considering it.

Step 1: Consent to the Driver

Make sure the driver is summarized clearly enough and is relevant for the group to respond to.

Facilitator asks: Are there any objections to this driver being described clearly enough and relevant for us to respond to?

Note: If you have already consented to the driver at an earlier stage in the process, there is no need to repeat this step here. However, in a case where someone is presenting a proposal to a group of stakeholders who were not involved in creating it, or if there are people who are only now joining the decision-making process, check everyone understands the driver for the proposal, and make sure that it's described clearly enough and it's relevant for those present to respond to, before considering the proposal itself.

As a general recommendation, aim to complete this step with meeting attendees asynchronously, prior to the meeting. This will give you the opportunity to make any refinements in advance and save wasting precious meeting time.

In case of objections that indicate:

• The driver is not described clearly enough: take time to clarify and make any necessary changes to how the driver is summarized until there are no further objections. Unless this will be a quick fix, consider doing this after the meeting and defer making the decision until the driver is clear.
• The driver is not relevant for this meeting / group: pass it on to the appropriate person or team, or discard it.

Step 2: Present the Proposal

Share the proposal with everyone.

Facilitator asks the author(s) of the proposal: Would you please present the proposal to everyone?

The author(s) of the proposal (tuners), present it to the group, including details about who is responsible for what, a suggested review date or frequency, and any identified evaluation criteria.

Preparation: Where possible, send out the proposal in advance of the meeting, so that people can familiarize themselves with the content, ask any clarifying questions, or even share improvement suggestions, prior to the meeting. This saves taking up precious face-to-face meeting time for things that can be done outside of the meeting.

Proposals are typically created by an individual or a group beforehand but are sometimes suggested "on the fly".

If you're the one presenting a proposal, write it down, share it with the others beforehand if possible and aim to keep your explanation concise and clear. Describe it in a way that maximizes the potential that others will understand what you are proposing, without requiring further explanation.

Note: Involving stakeholders in the creation of a proposal can increase engagement and accountability for whatever is decided because people are more likely to take ownership of an agreement that they participate in creating. On the other hand, participatory or collaborative decision-making requires people's time and effort, so, only use it when the gains are worthwhile.

Step 3: Understand the Proposal

Make sure everyone understands the proposal.

Facilitator asks: Are there any questions to understand this proposal as it's written here?

This is not a moment to get into dialogue about why a proposal has been put together in a certain way, but simply to check that everyone understands what is being proposed. Avoid "why" questions and focus instead on "what do you mean by …" questions.

Clarifying questions sometimes reveal helpful ways to change the proposal text to make it more clear. You can use this time to make edits to the proposal, if it supports people's understanding, but be wary of changing what is actually being proposed at this stage.

Note: If the group is experienced with using Consent Decision-Making, you might well make improvements to the proposal at this stage. However, if you're less familiar, beware, you are very likely to slip into another session of tuning the proposal, this time with everybody being involved. You run the risk of wasting time attempting to reach consensus, instead of proceeding with the process and evolving the proposal based on objections (in step 7).

Tips for the Facilitator:

• Use a round and invite the tuners (or whoever created the proposal) to answer one question at a time.
• Pick up on any "why" or "why not" questions and remind people that the purpose of this step is simply to ensure understanding of the current proposal, and not why the proposal was put together in this particular way.
  

Tips for everyone:

• Say "pass" if you don't have a question or you're unclear at this point what your question is.
• Keep your questions and answers brief and to the point.
• Avoid preamble and stick to the point, e.g.: "Well, one thing that is not so clear to me, or at least, that I want to make sure I understand correctly is …" or "I'm not sure how to phrase this, but let me try", etc.

Step 4: Brief Response

Get a sense of how this proposal lands with everyone.

Facilitator asks: What are your thoughts and feelings about the proposal?

Hearing everyone sharing their reflections, opinions and feelings about a proposal, helps to broaden people's understanding and consider the proposal from various points of view.

People's responses can reveal useful information and might already reveal concerns or possible objections. At this stage, listen but avoid interacting with what people say. This step is just about seeing the proposal through each other's eyes.

Examples:

• "I like that it's simple and straightforward. It's a great next step".
• "I'm a bit concerned that this will take a lot of time, when there are other important things that we need to take care of too".
• "I think there are some essential things missing here, like A and B for example".

Tips for Facilitator:

• Invite a round.
• Specify how "brief" the "brief response" should be! This will depend a lot on context and may range from a single sentence to some minutes of each person's time.
  

Tips for everyone:

• Avoid making comments or responding to what people share.
• Adjust your contribution to fit the time constraint.
• It's valuable to hear something from everyone in this round, so avoid passing. If you're lost for words, you can still say something like "I need some more time to think about it" or "I'm unsure at this point where I stand"

Step 5: Check for Possible Objections

People consider the proposal and then indicate if they have possible objections or concerns.

This step is simply about identifying who has possible objections or concerns. Arguments are heard in the next step.

If you came here from step 7 (Resolve One Objection), check for further possible objections to the amended proposal.

The facilitator asks: Are there any possible objections, or concerns to this proposal?

Remember: concerns don't stop proposals becoming agreements, only qualified objections do. Concerns are heard in Step 9, after celebrating reaching an agreement!

Tips for the facilitator:

In case the distinction between objections and concerns is still unclear for some people, remind them:

• An objection is an argument – relating to a proposal, agreement, activity or the existing state of affairs – that reveals consequences or risks you'd rather avoid, or demonstrates worthwhile ways to improve.
• A concern is an assumption that cannot (for now at least) be backed up by reasoning or enough evidence to prove its relevance or validity to those who are considering it.
• Proposals become agreements when they are considered good enough for now and safe enough to try until the next review.
  

Tips for everyone:

• Many groups use hand signs as a way to indicate quickly and clearly if anyone has any possible objections or concerns. If you are new to the process and concerned that you may be influenced by each other, wait until everyone is ready and then show hands simultaneously.
• If you are in doubt between a possible objection or a concern, share it as a possible objection so that you can check with others to test if it qualifies.
  

If no one indicates having any possible objections, you have reached agreement, move on to step 8 (Celebrate)!

Step 6: Test One Argument Qualifies as Objection

Use your limited time and resources wisely by testing if arguments qualify as objections and only acting on those that do.

Typically it's most effective to take one possible objection at a time, test if it qualifies as an objection, and if it does, resolve the objection before moving on to the next argument.

Tip for the Facilitator: In case there are several possible objections, explain to everyone that you're going to choose one person at a time, to share one argument. Clarify with everyone that, if having heard the argument, someone believes it would be more effective to consider one of their arguments first, they should speak up.

Check that the argument reveals how leaving the proposal unchanged:

• leads to consequences you want to avoid,
• could lead to consequences you want to avoid and it's a risk you don't want to take,
• or informs you of a worthwhile way to improve how to go about achieving your objectives.
  

If the argument doesn't qualify as an objection, go back to step 5 (Check for Possible Objections), otherwise continue to the next step.

Step 7: Resolve the Objection

Improve the proposal, based on the information revealed by the objection revealed in the previous step.

Once the objection is resolved, return to step 5.

Step 8: Celebrate!

Amazing! You made an agreement! And, with practice, you'll get faster as well! Take a moment to acknowledge the fact that an agreement has been made. Celebrate!

Step 9: Consider Concerns

After celebrating, consider if any concerns you have are worth voicing to the group before moving on to the next topic. If not, at least record them after the meeting, alongside the evaluation criteria for this agreement. Information about concerns might be useful for informing the evaluation of the agreement when the time comes for it to be reviewed.

Facilitator asks those with concerns: Are there any concerns worth hearing now? If not, please at least ensure that they are recorded alongside the evaluation criteria for this agreement.

Sometimes, what someone thought was a concern, turns out to be an objection. In this case, you can resolve it by amending your just-made agreement using the Resolve Objections process.

A Final Note:

If you are new to using Consent Decision-Making, we recommend you strictly follow the process until you become familiar with it and thoroughly understand all of the steps. Once you get more experience, you might hop around between steps, but doing this in the beginning can lead to confusion, and even, chaos.

For example, if there is a general expression of concern voiced during the Brief Response round, the facilitator (or another member of the group) might suggest evolving the proposal on the spot, to include points that people inferred. In this case, always check if there is any objection to doing so, first.

---

Test Arguments Qualify as Objections

When someone raises a possible objection (an argument for changing something) check that the argument reveals how leaving things unchanged will – or could – lead to consequences you want to avoid, or that it informs you of a worthwhile way to improve how to go about achieving your objectives.

Explore and refine each argument as necessary to identify any misconceptions or misunderstanding, and to eliminate aspects of the argument that are based merely on assumptions, or a personal preference or opinion. If you establish that what remains of the argument qualifies as an objection, then go on to resolve the objection.

Working with arguments

To have a productive dialogue, it is helpful to understand that any argument is made up of a series of claims: Each argument contains one or more premises, which are offered as reasons for accepting a conclusion.

Each of an argument's premises can be scrutinized individually, and when that is done, we can analyze whether or not the conclusion that follows from those premises stood up to the test.

It helps to present the argument in a way that makes the premises and conclusion, obvious, e.g. like this:

1 First Premise
2 Second Premise
– – – – – – – –
Therefore: Conclusion

Facilitator: invite the group to list the premises and explain the conclusion, and then take it from there.

Sometimes it can be helpful to record this information on a flip chart or a digital whiteboard, or even as text in a chat.

With an argument laid out like this, the group can focus questions to understand the argument according to each specific claim, and point out any claims with which they disagree. Each disagreement can be presented using the same method as above.

When a premise has been agreed upon, mark that as done, when the dialogue reveals a hidden premise, simply add it to the list. If a premise turns out to be invalid, remove it. Recording progress in this way helps to ensure that everyone is on the same page with the current state of an argument.

When agreement seems out of reach: In a group setting, it may at times turn out to be impossible to immediately resolve a disagreement about a specific claim relating to a possible objection, often because the group lacks data, knowledge or expertise. When such a situation occurs, one way to deal with it is to re-frame the possible objection around that specific uncertainty. If the amended argument qualifies as an objection, it can then be resolved by amending the proposal with an added provision for establishing the facts about the controversial claim.

A process for testing if an argument qualifies as objection

This process for testing if arguments qualify as objections, is a variation of the Reasoned Decision-Making pattern.

Step 1: Present the argument being put forward as a possible objection.

Step 2: Understand the argument.

Step 3: Check if there is any disagreement with the claim that the argument qualifies as an objection (e.g. people can indicate with a raised hand). The reasons for the disagreements are presented in the next step.

• If there is no disagreement, the argument qualifies as an objection and you can now proceed to resolve the objection.
• Otherwise take one possible disagreement at a time, and:
  

Step 4: Investigate the reasoning behind the disagreement:

• If it demonstrates that the original argument is false (totally or partly) or that ( despite it being sound), it doesn't qualify as an objection, continue with the next step.
• Otherwise go back to step 3 to check for any further disagreements.
  

Step 5: Integrate the information revealed in the previous step with the original argument:

• If the original argument still has some validity, refine it and then continue with step 3 to see if there is any disagreement with the refined argument.
• Otherwise you have demonstrated that the original argument is not an objection.
  

Below you'll find more guidance on how to go through each step. As with all patterns in S3, your approach to testing if arguments qualify as objections can be adjusted to suit your context.

Step 1 Present argument

Present the argument being put forward as a possible objection.

Facilitator asks the person with the possible objection: Please explain your argument.

Step 2 Understand argument

Ensure everyone understands the argument.

Facilitator asks everyone: Any questions to understand the argument?

Everyone: If you don't understand, jump in and ask a clarifying question. The person presenting the argument explains further, until everyone understands.

Step 3 Check for disagreement with the argument

People consider the argument and then indicate if they disagree.

Everyone: reflect for yourself if you think the argument presented qualifies as an objection or not.

Note: If a group is new to the process, the facilitator might explicitly invite everyone to reflect for themselves: Do you think this argument qualifies as an objection?

Facilitator asks: Does anyone disagree totally or in part, that this argument qualifies as an objection? If so, please raise your hand.

• If no-one disagrees: the argument qualifies as an objection. Proceed to resolve the objection.
• If anyone disagrees: continue to the next step.
  

Step 4: Investigate the reasoning behind a disagreement

Choose one of the people with a raised hand and using the same process for testing arguments qualify as objections, determine if their reasons for disagreeing are valid or not:

4.1. Present the reason for disagreement: Facilitator invites: Please explain why the original argument is totally or partly incorrect.

4.2. Understand reason for disagreement: Facilitator invites: Are there any questions to understand this argument?

4.3. Check for disagreement to the disagreement: Facilitator asks: Does anyone disagree with the reason for this disagreement, entirely or in part?

• If no one disagrees: the argument for the disagreement is considered valid. Go to step 5.
• If anyone disagrees: investigate the reasoning behind the disagreement (see step 4) until you come to an argument that no-one disagrees with. Then take each preceding argument in turn – checking if there's anything remaining and/or if it needs to be changed or dropped (see step 5 for guidelines on how to do this) – until you arrive back to the initial disagreement.

Step 5: Integrate the information revealed in the previous step with the original argument

Facilitator asks the person who presented the original argument: "Anything remaining of your argument?"

The person who brought the original argument has the option to refine, rephrase or reframe their argument, or to drop it entirely, if there's nothing remaining.

• If the original argument still has some validity, refine it and then continue with step 3 to see if there is any disagreement with the refined argument.
• Otherwise you have demonstrated that the original argument is not an objection.

---

Resolve Objections

A proposal becomes an agreement when all objections have been resolved.

Objections are resolved by amending the proposal. Amendments can include:

• adding, removing and/or changing something in the proposal.
• deferring resolution of a particular objection until later. (Remember to clarify who will take responsibility for this, by when and what will happen after that).
• an alternative proposal, or an agreement to (co-)create a new proposal in future (if it's considered more effective than continuing to work on developing the existing proposal).
• delegating the task to review, research, and/or propose an amendment for one, or even several related objections, to an individual or group.
• leaving the main proposal unchanged and monitoring the outcome because the effort, or cost of changing things to resolve the objection, outweighs the anticipated benefits or gain.
• asking a delegator for feedback or input (e.g. when agreeing on a strategy for a subdomain).
• take some more time for reflection and then come back to the objection again later.
• etc.
  

There's always an iterative next step of some kind that you can take! Even if a proposal doesn't fully address the driver, reaching agreement about one or more iterative next steps is often good enough. It's also helpful sometimes to break things down into small steps, especially when you're dealing with complex or complicated situations.

Objections can be resolved by following the process outlined in Reasoned Decision-Making:

Step 1: Come up with a proposal for an amendment

Step 2: Understand the proposed amendment

Step 3: Check if there are any possible objections to the proposed amendment , e.g. by using hand signs. The possible objections themselves are presented in Step 4.

If there are no possible objections, proceed to step 6 (Celebrate), otherwise take one possible objection at a time, and:

Step 4: Hear the reasoning for the possible objection and determine if the argument put forward has any validity.

Step 5: Integrate any information revealed in the previous step to improve the proposed amendment, then go back to step 3.

Step 6: Celebrate! You've agreed on an amendment that resolves the objection!

Below you'll find more guidance on how to go through each step. This process can be repeated until all objections have been resolved. As with all patterns in S3, your approach to resolving objections can be adjusted to suit your context.

Step 1: Come up with proposal for an amendment

Come up with a suggestion for how to amend the proposal to resolve the objection based on information the objection reveals.

There are many ways to come up with an amendment. Below are some typical options you can use. We recommend you use them in the order they are presented: if the first option does not work, go to the next one, and so on. Once you get more familiar with the process you'll be able to discern in the moment which option is more suitable.

1. Ask the person raising the objection: "Do you have a suggestion for how to amend this proposal to resolve this objection?"
2. Ask the group "Does anyone have a suggestion for how to amend this proposal to resolve this objection?" and choose one person to present their suggestion.
3. In case it's difficult to immediately come up with an amendment, invite a timeboxed dialogue to share ideas, with the purpose of coming up with an amendment from there.
   

As with any proposal, an amendment suggestion gives you a starting point that can then be refined through inviting and resolving objections. (see Step 4:Test One Argument Qualifies as Objection)

It's often helpful to repeat or summarise the amendment and write it down for everyone to see.

Step 2: Understand amendment

Ensure everyone understands the amendment being proposed.

Facilitator asks: Any questions to understand the proposed amendment?

Tips for everyone:

• Keep your questions and answers brief and to the point.
• Avoid getting into discussions or expressing opinions about the validity of the amendment at this stage. The point of this step is simply to ensure the suggested amendment is clear.
• Add relevant clarifications to the written amendment.
  

Step 3: Check for Possible Objections

People consider the proposed amendment and then indicate if they have possible objections or concerns.

This step is simply about identifying who has possible objections or concerns. Arguments are heard in the next step.

Facilitator asks: Are there any possible objections, or concerns to this amendment? (note that the subject here is the amendment, not the whole proposal!)

Many groups use hand signs as a way to indicate quickly and clearly if anyone has any possible objections.

• In case there are possible objections to the suggested amendment, go on to the next step, Test One Argument Qualifies as Objection(link).
• If no one indicates having any possible objections, go to Step 6: Celebrate, because you've agreed on the amendment.
  

Step 4: Test One Argument Qualifies as Objection

Please refer to Test Arguments Qualify as Objections

• If the argument qualifies, continue to Step 5 (Resolve one Objection)
• If the argument doesn't qualify, go back to Step 3 to check if there are any further possible objections to the proposed amendment.

Step 5: Resolve one Objection

Repeat the process: use the Resolve Objection pattern to resolve one objection to the amendment.

Come up with an amendment to the current amendment suggestion! Be aware that a proposed amendment might include the suggestion to entirely replace the current amendment with a different one instead.

As you can see, the Resolve Objections pattern can be used recursively. Below you will find an illustration that shows how this works.

Step 6: Celebrate!

You've agreed on an amendment that resolves the objection! Before moving on, remember to update your original proposal to integrate the amendment you've agreed on.

---

Evaluate And Evolve Agreements

Regular review of agreements is an essential practice for a learning organization:

• adapt agreements to suit changing context
• integrate learning to make them more effective

Ensure all agreements have an appropriate review date.
Evaluating agreements can be as simple as checking that an agreement is still relevant, and there is no objection to keeping it as it is.

Agreements are often reviewed in Governance Meetings, however sometimes it's more effective to schedule a dedicated session.
Adjust review frequency as necessary, and review early if required.
Elements of this pattern can also be used by individuals to evaluate decisions they make.

Short Format

• How has this agreement helped us?
• Is there any reason to drop this agreement?
• How can this agreement be improved?
• Agree on a next review date.

Long Format

Preparation:

• Schedule the review.
• Ensure all necessary information is available.

Follow-up:

• Agree on the next review date.
• Document decisions and tasks, and share with relevant people.
• Consider effects on any related agreements.

---

Co-Create Proposals

There are many ways to co-create proposals. They typically follow a similar pattern:

1. Agree on the driver (or problem / opportunity / need)
2. Explore the topic and understand constraints
3. Generate ideas
4. Design a proposal (often done by a smaller group)

One way to co-create proposals is to use S3's Proposal Forming pattern.

For inspiration for steps 2 and 3, look to classic group facilitation techniques or design thinking activities.
Besides in a face-to-face workshop, you can adapt this process for online meetings. You can even use it asynchronously (and over an extended period of time) to include many people.

---

Proposal Forming

• draws on the collective intelligence and diversity of perspective within a group
• involves people in co-creating agreements
• fosters accountability and sense of ownership

Proposal Forming may also be used by an individual.

Proposal Forming Steps

Consent to driver: Briefly present the driver. Is this driver relevant for us to respond to? Are there any essential amendments to what has been presented?
Deepen shared understanding of driver: invite essential questions to understand the driver in more detail.
Collect considerations phrased as questions relating to possible solutions. Questions either reveal constraints (information gathering questions) or possibilities (generative questions).
Answer any information gathering questions if possible.
Prioritize considerations.
Gather ideas as possible ingredients for a proposal.
Design a proposal for addressing the driver considering the creative ideas and information gathered so far. This is usually done by a smaller group of "tuners".

Choosing Tuners

Consider:

• who should be there?
• who wants to be there?
• who else may have a valuable contribution to make?
• consider expertise, outside view, and inspiration

Between two and three tuners is usually appropriate. Check for any objections to the proposed tuner(s).

---

Reasoned Decision-Making

There are many paths people can follow to arrive at a decision with others (majority, consensus, authoritative, etc), but for any approach that uses reason as a basis for that agreement, they typically follow a similar pattern of Reasoned Decision-Making.

Reasoned Decision-Making lays out the process that groups take when applying reason to check whether a proposal, existing agreement or amendment is good enough, or if a particular argument is relevant, valid or empirically true.
The steps of the process

Reasoned Decision-Making

Step 1: Present the subject for investigation (this could be an argument, or a proposal for how to proceed).

Step 2: Understand the subject (e.g. through clarifying questions).

Step 3: Check if anyone disagrees with the subject (meaning they question the viability of the proposal or the validity of the argument), e.g. by using hand signs. Any disagreements are explained in Step 4. If there are no disagreements, proceed to step 6 (Celebrate), otherwise take one disagreement at a time and:

Step 4: Dispute Hear the reasoning for the disagreement and determine if the argument put forward has any validity.

Step 5: Integrate any information revealed in the previous step to improve the subject, then go back to step 3.

Step 6: Celebrate reaching agreement.

How people undergo each of these steps varies and depends a lot on culture, context, preference, the number of people involved, and on whether they are communicating asynchronously or meeting face-to-face.

Mapping Reasoned Decision-Making to other patterns in S3

Reasoned Decision-Making is reflected in all of the S3 process patterns that support groups to reach agreement. Understanding this meta-pattern helps people to more effectively apply them:

• Consent Decision-Making, for testing if a proposal or existing agreement is good enough and safe enough. And, within this, two nested patterns:
• Test Arguments Qualify as Objections, for testing if arguments qualify as objections and only acting on those that do.
• Resolve Objections, for using the information revealed by objections to make and evolve agreements.

Each of the three processes focuses on the investigation of a different subject:

• In Consent Decision-Making the subject is a proposal.
• In Test Argument Qualifies as Objection the subject is an argument that indicates a possible objection.
• In Resolving Objections - the subject is a proposed amendment.

---

Role Selection

Role Selection

Role Selection - Steps

1. Present Role Description: If possible, send out the role's domain description in advance.
2. Record Nominations: Participants write their nomination on a slip of paper. People can nominate themselves, another, or pass.
3. Reasons for Nominations: Each person shares who they have nominated and why.
4. Information Gathering: Participants share or request any information that might support the group in making an appropriate selection.
5. Nomination Changes: Check if anyone wants to change their nomination in light of reasons and information shared so far, and hear the reasons for each change.
6. Propose a nominee for the role: The facilitator guides the process to identify a suitable nominee on the strength of the reasons heard, e.g. by:
   
   • proposing a nominee themselves or asking a group member
   • inviting (some) nominees to agree who should be proposed
   • inviting group dialogue to help reveal the strongest nominee
7. Check for Objections: Ask participants (including the proposed nominee) to simultaneously signal whether or not they have an objection.
8. Address and Resolve Objections, beginning with any from the proposed nominee. Objections may be resolved in many ways, including amending the role's domain description or by nominating someone else. When all objections are resolved, check with the (final) nominee again if they accept the role.
9. Celebrate: Acknowledge reaching agreement and thank the person who will now keep the role.
   

Evolving Organizations

Clarify and Develop Domains

Explicitly clarify, and then regularly evaluate and develop a domain's design based on learning, to enable those with responsibility for the domain to account for it as effectively as possible.

A clear understanding of people's area of responsibility and autonomy enables greater efficiency, effective collaboration, and agility throughout an organization.

To make better use of their limited time, energy, and resources, people in organizations distribute work between them by creating roles or forming teams, units, or departments. In the process they are explicitly or implicitly designing domains - distinct areas of responsibility and autonomy.

Any role or team's purpose is to contribute towards the overall purpose of the organization by taking care of a specific organizational need. Inadequately defined domains typically lead to stakeholders having different assumptions about areas of responsibility and autonomy. As a consequence, both collaboration and distribution of work suffers because of missed dependencies, double work, or work not done at all.

Clarifying domains makes the contract between delegator and delegatee(s) explicit, which enables everyone to learn about what works and what doesn't, because everyone understands who is responsible for what. A clear domain description with a reasonable amount of detail is a necessary prerequisite for people to successfully evaluate and continuously improve their work.

A simple way for supporting stakeholders in developing shared understanding about the various aspects of a domain is by creating a domain description that contains information about:

• Primary Driver (and/or Purpose)
• Key Responsibilities
• Dependencies
• External Constraints
• Key Challenges
• Key Deliverables
• Competencies, Qualities and Skills
• Key Resources
• Delegator Responsibilities
• Key Metrics
• Evaluation

On the S3 Canvas microsite you can find a variety of templates you can use for (co-)creating and documenting domain descriptions.

Consider designing domains with the minimal constraints necessary and always choose constraints that enable people to maximally create value.

The delegatee(s) may do whatever they think will help them achieve their purpose, unless it is outside the domain of the organization, explicitly forbidden, they violate somebody else's (explicit) domain, or impede other people's contribution to the organization in some other way. Things that are forbidden may include explicit constraints laid out in the domain description, any other agreements the delegatee(s) needs to keep, or legal and regulatory requirements.

When to clarify domains

Consider clarifying domains whenever you identify that stakeholders have differing assumptions about the domain of an existing role, position, team, department, or unit, or even about the domain of the organization as a whole.

As a delegator, clarify any new domains that you intend to delegate.

When retrospectively clarifying domains that have already been delegated to people, a delegator can gain valuable insights by inviting the delegatee(s) to describe the domain from their perspective first.

Regularly evaluate and evolve domains

People's understanding of the organization is limited and the environment is always changing. Therefore it is essential that delegator, delegatee(s) and other relevant stakeholders regularly take the time to evaluate and evolve both the design of the domain and how people account for it as their understanding of the domain deepens.

People might do a great job of accounting for a domain in the way it's designed, but the design of the domain might be primitive or flawed. On the other hand, even if the design of a domain is poor in the first iteration, through this process it will improve over time.

Clarify the domain of the whole organization

All domains in an organization are nested within the overall domain of the organization, which can be designed deliberately in the early stages of the organization, or clarified retrospectively. An organization's domain needs to enable the members of the organization to effectively fulfill its purpose and typically needs to be evolved over time.

Consider explicitly clarifying the organization's overall domain if you discover that key stakeholders have differing understanding about it, or when changes to that domain need to be made. In order to do this it's necessary to identify the overall delegator of the organization.

An organization's domain should be designed with the customer and business model in mind, and needs to factor in environmental constraints (e.g. legal, economic, market, competition, etc.)

Regularly evaluate the organization's domain to support those responsible for the organization to quickly learn and adapt.

One way of clarifying an organization's domain is by filling out an S3 Organization Canvas.

Useful aspects to clarify in a domain description

All of the following elements are important to consider when clarifying a domain. Depending on your situation and where you are in the lifecycle of the domain, you might be able to describe each of them more or less clearly. Regularly evaluate, test assumptions and make things clearer as you learn.

Primary Driver

Explain how the delegatee(s) will contribute to the overall purpose of the organization, by clarifying the specific organizational need they (will) take care of.

Describe the main organizational driver the delegatee(s) (will) respond to, for example using the pattern Describe Organizational Drivers.

Aim for one or two sentences, so that the information is easy to remember and process.

Besides the summary, more details about the driver may be kept in the logbook.

Key Responsibilities

List all essential work and decision-making being delegated, in a way that enables measuring success.

Key responsibilities are those responsibilities that stakeholders consider essential to take care of for the delegatee(s) to successfully account for the domain.

Describe explicitly why each of these responsibilities matter for the organization and the value that taking care of them brings to the organization.

Responsibilities should be specific and measurable, so they can be reviewed and developed as required.

Dependencies

Make explicit the essential dependencies between this domain and other parts of the organization, so that the delegatee(s) can collaborate on managing those dependencies with the other stakeholders.
Consider:

• Internal and external customers (those who consume the team's output)
• Providers of products or services essential to the work of the delegatee(s).
• Shared resources

External Constraints

Describe important constraints to the autonomy and influence of the delegatee(s).

External constraints might be fixed or negotiable. They may refer to customer requirements, to the outside world, to other essential stakeholders in the organization, to overarching responsibilities the delegatee(s) may have, or to the preference of the delegator.

Some examples:

• Specific decisions requiring authorization
• Legal, time, or budget constraints
• Audits and or expected reporting
• Strategy of the delegator and the whole organization
• Organizational values

Key Challenges

What are the known or anticipated challenges that the delegatee(s) might face when accounting for this domain: relating to the outside world, the rest of the organization and sometimes to a specific delegatee?

• risks and vulnerabilities
• variables (e.g. weather)
• uncertainty and complexity
• lack of skills or resources.
  

Note: there are always some risks that you need to manage. Try to list at least 3!

Key Deliverables

What does the team or role provide to respond to its primary driver, the key responsibilities and the key challenges faced?

As a delegator, consider carefully to what degree you will leave the design of deliverables to the delegatee(s), who can then define deliverables and add them to the domain description later. Letting the delegatee(s) lead on the design of deliverables often frees them up to deliver value according to their strengths and interest.

Describe each deliverable with a reasonable amount of detail and ensure that deliverables are valuable to the stakeholders that receive them. You can start with a sentence or two about each deliverable but eventually you might need to describe them in more detail.

Competencies, qualities and skills

What competencies, qualities and skills are required – or at least preferable – to successfully account for this domain?

Key Resources

Essential resources the delegatee(s) can make use of in accounting for their domain, e.g. time allocation, budget, privileges, facilities, hardware, software, etc.

Delegator Responsibilities

When delegating a domain to others, the delegator still retains overall accountability for the domain and often has a valuable contribution to make toward accounting for that domain.

List the exact responsibilities the delegator takes on in support of the delegatee(s) accounting for this domain.

Consider:

• Opportunities for learning and development and support offered to the delegatee(s).
• Things essential for successfully accounting for the domain that only the delegator can do.
• Things that make the delegatees' life easier and are worthwhile including.
  

Describe the delegator's responsibilities in specific and measurable terms, so that they can be reviewed and developed as required.

Key Metrics

Key Metrics are statistics that serve as critical indicators of progress, project health or performance. They relate to the primary driver (and/or purpose), key responsibilities, challenges, deliverables, and delegator responsibilities defined for this domain.

Key Metrics are monitored and assessed frequently. They are relevant criteria for evaluating outcomes and success in scheduled evaluations.

For each metric, consider the actual numbers that are monitored, as well as the meaning of those numbers in relation to the domain (targets, acceptable range, or tolerance).

Aim to define simple and specific metrics that you can take regularly (preferably daily).

Monitoring and Evaluation

Regularly evaluate the outcome resulting from activity in this domain and use what you learn to improve creation of value.

In the evaluation, ensure you consider the following aspects:

• The value the delegatee(s) brought to the organization by accounting for the domain.
• The delegatees' work processes, and their collaboration with each other, with the delegator, and with the rest of the organization.
• How well the delegator takes care of their responsibilities.
• The design of the domain itself (and potentially the design of other related domains).
• The delegatees' competencies and skills in relation to the domain.
• The strategy the delegatee(s) follows to account for this domain.

Define:

• A schedule or frequency for evaluations.
• Other helpful evaluation criteria in addition to the key metrics.
• Any other relevant aspects to consider for the evaluation.
• Who should take part in the evaluation.
• A process for evaluation (e.g. Peer Review).
• Consider including a term (for a role).

Make sure to record and monitor when a domain is due review and add these dates to your logbook.

Additional Information

Consider also including the following information to the domain description

• Domain Name
• Delegator (name of the circle or role; e.g. R&D, Project Manager, CEO, etc)
• Delegatee(s) (if they are known at the time)
• Date of latest update to the domain description
• Author's Names
• Term (for a role)

Delegate Influence

Distribute the power to influence, to enable people to decide and act for themselves within defined constraints.

A delegator can support delegatees to deliver value by:

• Clearly defining domains of autonomy and responsibility
• Ensuring there are opportunities for learning and development
• Providing support if required
  

Adjust constraints incrementally, considering capabilities, reliability and outcome.

Decentralize as much as possible, and retain as much influence as necessary.

Clarify and Develop Strategy

A strategy is a high level approach for how people will create value to successfully account for a domain.

It is usually more effective if a team or role keeper lead in developing their own strategy.

A strategy often includes a description of the intended outcome of implementing that strategy.

As the delegator shares accountability for domains they delegate, it's valuable they review a delegatee's strategy, to check for potential impediments and suggest ways it could be improved.

A strategy is a shared agreement between delegator(s) and delegatee(s) that is regularly reviewed and updated as necessary (pivot or persevere)

Strategies are validated and refined through experimentation and learning.

Align Flow

In support of continuous flow of value, move decision-making close to where value is created, and align the flow of information accordingly.

Flow of value: Deliverables traveling through an organization towards customers or other stakeholders.

Achieve and maintain alignment of flow through the continuous evolution of an organization's body of agreements:

• ensure all decisions affecting the flow of value actually support the flow of value
• enable people with relevant skills and knowledge to influence decisions
• make available any helpful information
• aim for shorter feedback loops to amplify learning.
  

When decision-making is conducted close to where value is created, and the flow of information supports the continuous and steady flow of value, the potential for accumulation of waste is reduced.

Create a Pull-System For Organizational Change

Create an environment that invites and enables members of the organization to drive change.

Change things when there is value in doing so:

• Bring in patterns that help to solve current and important problems.
• Don't break what's already working!
• Meet everyone where they are …
• … and support everyone to make necessary changes at a manageable pace.

Driver Mapping

A workshop format for large groups to co-create and organize themselves in response to a complex situation of significant scope and scale.

You can use Driver Mapping to:

• organize start-ups,
• kick-off projects,
• tackle major impediments or opportunities,
• implement strategy
• develop organizational structure to better enable the flow of value.

The outcome of a driver mapping workshop is typically:

• a distribution of work, categorized in a number of domains, centered around the needs of stakeholders.
• a bespoke organizational structure that brings it all together, including interlinking domains for managing dependencies.
• a first draft of prioritized governance and operations backlogs for each identified subdomain.
• delegation of influence and the distribution of people to the subdomains through self-selection and nomination.
  

Although Driver Mapping is often used for identifying and defining new domains, there are also applications for identifying and distributing governance and operational drivers among existing domains in an organization, e.g. when an initiative will be dealt with by existing teams in an organization, or if a group feels they're stuck in their current structure and are looking for inspiration for how to incrementally adapt it. The group can decide if they would map to existing domains and figure out which new ones they'd need to create, or even create a new structure from scratch.
In a small team or circle (max. 6-8 people), when it's not a priority to distribute work, the team might only use steps 1-5, to understand the scope and fill the operations and governance backlog, and then use proposal forming or some other approach for identifying strategy and/or next steps.
In preparation:

• Invite people that can make a relevant contribution to this project. Send out the agenda for the workshop ahead of time.
• Send out the primary you'll work with, and in case of an existing domain, the domain description for the project/initiative in advance so people can familiarize themselves with it. Aim to resolve any objections before the workshop.
• Attendees may already prepare by thinking through and recording ideas of actors and relating needs.
• Prepare a poster with the domain description to present in the first step. You will also need A5 and rectangular sticky notes, pens and a wide wall to work.
  

The Driver Mapping Process:

These are the steps to follow:

1. Why are we here?

Present and consent to the primary driver

• Present the primary driver to the group
• Consent to the driver – Is this a clear enough description of the driver? Is it relevant for us to respond to?
• Clarify any existing constraints from the delegator, e.g. budget, due date, expectations, etc. In the case of an existing domain, present the domain description.Invite further questions that help deepen understanding about what's happening and what's needed.
• Make explicit the level of commitment expected from the participants. E.g. people are expected to be here for the duration of the workshop only, or for the duration of the initiative, etc.
• Record any relevant information that comes up.
  

2. Who will be impacted?

Who will be impacted as we respond to the primary driver? Consider who can help / stand in the way / benefit / lose or be harmed.

• List actors on sticky notes and display them on a board
• Focus on actual people that will be impacted by this initiative (groups or individuals), and avoid making assumptions about future roles (such as Project Manager) or other domains (e.g. Marketing) at this stage.
  

3. What is needed?

Consider the various actors and describe what is needed: what do they need in context of the primary driver, and what do we need from them?

• Write each suggestion on a separate sticky note (need card)
• Describe the need as well as the anticipated impact of responding to that need
• Use the format "We/they need … so that …"
• Add the name of the actor in the top left corner of the card
• Add your name in the top right corner of the card

4. Identify experience and expertise

Identify who has experience or expertise in responding to these needs, so that later, when people respond to a specific need, they know who might have valuable input.

• Take time to familiarize yourself with the various need cards.
• Add your name to those need cards you have experience with, or ideas how to address, so that later in the process people can consult with you if helpful.
• Consider adding names of people who are not present if you think they would have a valuable contribution to make.
• Write the name(s) of these people at the bottom of the need card.
• Adding your name to a card in this step, doesn't mean you're taking responsibility for the need, only that you're able and willing to contribute to finding a solution if that's helpful later.
  

5. Identify Domains

Cluster actors and/or needs according to relevance, into coherent domains as a starting point to sorting and prioritizing needs. Consider how to optimize end-to-end delivery of value to the various actors that you identified in step 2.
Ways to identify domains:

• Cluster groups of similar actors (actor-centric)
• Cluster groups of similar needs (needs-centric)
• A combination of both (of the above) is common

Consider this step complete, as soon as you've agreed on a first iteration of a meaningful distribution of work. Remember, you can make changes to the domains you defined at any time (later during the workshop or afterward), so you only need to aim for something that's good enough to start.
As a facilitator, gently support the group in self-organizing, and be mindful of people dropping out of the conversation. This process often includes a phase that appears chaotic to some participants, which might make them feel uncomfortable. To test if a result is achieved, ask for objections to the domains being good enough for now.

7. Refine the Backlogs

Organize the work that lies ahead in each domain, ensure things are prioritized and described clearly.

• For each domain, copy the template below to a flip chart
• Sort all remaining needs into the two backlogs on the flip chart:
• operations backlog: needs that can be acted
• governance backlog: needs that would benefit from or necessitate a decision
• Combine and rephrase cards as necessary, so that description on each card is clear. Consult the author of the card when in doubt.
• Prioritize the cards in each board.
• Archive any "needs" cards that appear superfluous.
• Consider the domain and describe and prioritize other needs that may not have been identified.
• Pass on cards that appear to be the accountability of another domain to address.
• Add cards concerning multiple domains to a dedicated backlog to address later.
  

_As a facilitator of the driver mapping process, provide a space to collect cards concerning multiple domains so that they can be addressed later. _
Regularly pause to share reports between the various domains. Note: Some domains might dissolve, change or merge with others.

8. Connect Domains

Create structure to manage dependencies and deal with matters that extend beyond the scope of one domain or concern the wider organization

• For a new organization or project, consider Delegate Circles, Service Circles or Double-linking between domains.
• For an existing organization, also consider connecting to existing domains in the organization.
  

9. What else?

Take a moment to check if anything's missing.
What else do we need to consider…

• …to run safely?
• …to address the primary driver?

10. Celebrate!

Take a moment to celebrate your achievements in getting your organization or initiative started!

Open Systems

Intentionally communicate with and learn from others outside of your system.

Individuals, teams and entire organizations can acknowledge interdependence and intentionally invite people from outside their system to bring in knowledge, experience and influence to assist with decision-making and support collective learning.

• External experts can offer an outside perspective and bring knowledge, understanding and skills
• Representatives of affected parties can inform and influence decision-making in ways that benefit overall objectives

Peer Development

Ask For Help

A simple protocol for learning, skill sharing, and building connections, with respect for people's agency.

Ask someone, "would you be willing to help me with …?" The person asked accepts or declines with a simple "yes" or "no".

• if the request is declined, the person asking accepts the answer without negotiation or inquiry
• if the request is unclear, inquire for more information
• if you accept a request for help, support your peer in the best way you can

Peer Feedback

Invite any member of your organization to give you some constructive feedback on your performance in a role or in a team, about your general participation and contribution, or about any other area you wish to develop.

Before the invitation, consider who might be able and willing to provide the feedback you seek, and decide on an appropriate duration – 15 or 30 minutes is usually enough.

Schedule the session in advance, so that your peer can prepare for your meeting, and schedule some time for yourself after the session to decide how you will act on the feedback you received.

In the invitation, clarify the topic you want feedback on, and explain that you are looking for both appreciations and actionable improvement suggestions.

During the session itself, consider:

• taking notes to ensure you can remember the details
• repeating back, feedback you receive in your own words to check for the accuracy of your understanding
• asking clarifying question to better understand feedback if the intended meaning is unclear for you
  

Avoid discussing or judging the feedback you receive and remember to thank your peer for taking the time to give you their feedback.

After the session, review your notes and decide for yourself what you will do with the feedback you received. It's your choice if you want to share your decision with your peer.

Peer Review

Support each other to learn and grow in the roles and teams you serve in.

The role keeper - or team - leads the peer review by setting up the process, and by speaking first in each step.

Ensure you invite people with complementary perspectives to contribute to the review, and a facilitator.

For both appreciations and improvement suggestions, ensure you consider the following aspects:

• The value the delegatee brought to the organization by accounting for the domain.
• The role keeper's or team's work processes, and their collaboration with the delegator and with other relevant stakeholders, and – in the case of a team - with each other.
• How well the delegator takes care of their responsibilities.
• The design of the domain itself (and potentially the design of other related domains).
• The role keeper's or team's competencies and skills in relation to the domain.
• The strategy the role keeper or team follows to account for this domain.

Development Plan

A plan for how to develop more effective ways of accounting for a domain, agreed between delegator and delegatee.

The development plan may be created for a person in a role, or for a team (e.g. a department, circle or open domain).

Development may happen in the form of refining the description of the driver and the domain, making amendments to strategy, or new or updated agreements and specific actions to be taken, either within the domain of the delegator, or the domain of the delegatee.

A development plan (and any accompanying recommendations for changes to the descriptions of the domain and the driver) requires consent from both the delegatee and the delegator.

Enablers of Co-Creation

Artful Participation

Commit to doing your best to act and interact in ways that enable effective collaboration.

"Is my behavior in this moment the greatest contribution I can make to the effectiveness of this collaboration?"

Participating artfully may include interrupting, objecting or breaking agreements.

Artful Participation is an individual commitment to:

• actively consider and follow-up on all agreements made, in the best way possible, given the circumstances
• develop awareness and understanding of individual and collective needs
• grow the necessary skills
• support others to participate artfully
• bring impediments and improvement suggestions to the attention of others if necessary
  

Benefits Of Artful Participation

Artful participation:

• enables co-creation and evolution of agreements
• helps to grow stronger teams
• builds self-accountability, integrity and trust
• generates a culture of mutual support and close collaboration
• is more powerful when embraced by many
  

Artful Participation: Self-Assessment

• How can I support myself and others to participate more artfully?
• Where are my interactions with others unhelpful or ineffective?
• Which agreements do I find hard to keep? What can I do to address this?
• What skills can I develop, that would support me to participate more artfully?
• What would artful participation mean in relation to:
  

• my daily activities?
• collaboration and interaction with others?
• the organization? …our customers or clients?
• the wider environment?

Adopt The Seven Principles

Align collaboration with the Seven Principles.

dopting the Seven Principles reduces the number of explicit agreements required, and guides adaptation of S3 patterns to suit the organization's context.

An organization's values need to embrace the Seven Principles.

Agree On Values

Intentionally evolve the culture in your organization.

Values are valued principles that guide behavior. Values define scope for action and ethical constraints.

• each member brings their own values to an organization based on personal experiences and beliefs
• a team or organization may choose to collectively adopt values to guide their collaboration
  

Values offer guidance to determine appropriate action, even in the absence of explicit agreements.
Collectively adopting a set of values supports the effectiveness of an organization:

• reduces potential for misunderstanding
• helps to align decision making and action
• attracts new members, partners and customers who are aligned with the organization
  

Chosen values are an agreement that benefits from regular review.

Involve Those Affected

Involve people in making decisions that affect them, to maintain equivalence and accountability, and to increase the amount of information available on the subject.

For larger groups:

• facilitate a process in several stages and create smaller groups who select delegates
• use an online tool and conduct an asynchronous, timeboxed and staged process
  

Consider including those affected in reviewing and evolving decisions, too.

Breaking Agreements

Break agreements when you are certain the benefit for the organization outweighs the cost of waiting to amend that agreement first, and take responsibility for any consequences.

Breaking agreements is sometimes necessary but may come at a cost to the community.

Be accountable:

• clean up disturbances
• follow up as soon as possible with those affected
• change the agreement instead of repeatedly breaking it

Transparent Salary

Create a fair salary formula and make it transparent.

Transparent salary (also referred to as "open salary") is the practice of determining each employee's compensation according to a set of rules - the salary formula - instead of making compensation subject to individual negotiation between employer and employee. The salary formula - and often individual compensation as well - is transparent to all members of an organization, and sometimes to the public.

A transparent salary formula needs to suit an organization's context, and to be perceived as fair enough by all stakeholders.

Perception of fairness varies from person to person and according to context, so creating a salary formula requires developing a shared understanding of what is considered fair.

When deciding (or agreeing) on a salary formula for an organization or department, consider:

• what would be a suitable fixed subsistence guarantee
• how to calculate compensation according to need, investment, productivity, or merit
• how to distribute the organization's profit and cover for losses in line with expectations and needs of the various stakeholders
  

Decide how to handle remuneration for changing roles and develop a strategy for how to transition towards new contracts and compensation agreements.

---

Contract For Successful Collaboration

Support successful collaboration from the start and build trust between parties by co-creating mutually beneficial and legally robust contracts.

A contract is a body of promises that two or more parties agree to make legally binding, i.e if those promises are violated, the injured party gains access to legal (or alternative) remedies.

Developing shared understanding about needs and expectations is essential for successful collaboration.

While negotiating and agreeing on a contract, model the culture of collaboration you want to achieve, and build a positive relationship with the other parties involved.

This pattern refers to contracts relating related to collaboration around any business transaction between an organization and other parties (e.g. employees, consultants, service providers, shareholders or customers). It is especially relevant for contracts that have a significant influence on the future of an organization or one of its partners, such as:

• employment contracts and contracts with external contractors or consultants in support roles (including any agreement that results in a change of remuneration or working hours)
• contracts governing collaboration with customers, vendors or service providers
• shareholder agreements
  

Note: Many agreements about collaboration within an organization do not require dedicated contracts, as they are already governed by or subject to existing contracts.

Success criteria for contract negotiation

When negotiating a contract, ensure:

• shared understanding of the reason for the collaboration, as well as the intended outcome and important constraints
• all parties understand what is expected of them
• all parties affected by a contract are involved in creating the contract and enter it voluntarily
• expectations are realistic
• the agreement is beneficial to all parties
• everyone intends to keep to the agreement made
  

If for any reason one or more of these criteria cannot be fulfilled, it is probably wise to not proceed.

Co-creating the contract

The way a contract is negotiated can significantly contribute toward building trust between parties. Approach contracting from the point of view of making an agreement between partners, not adversaries: co-create the contract, tailor it to its specific context, and ensure it is legally robust.

• the contract should include all expectations of the parties involved, each explained with adequate detail
• use clear and simple language that all parties can understand, and be unambiguous about legal consequences
• if you need to use specific technical or legal terms a party might be unfamiliar with, explain them in a glossary that is part of the contract
• consult a lawyer who supports the culture you aspire to and is competent in the field if business you are negotiating
  

When Co-Creating a Contract:

• ensure all parties have a delegation that includes representation for all affected domains (e.g. not only sales, but also development / production / support, etc)
• explicitly describe the culture you want to develop, with consideration for common ground and any cultural differences between parties
• state the reasons for the proposed collaboration, and transparent about expectations and needs of all parties
• disclose all relevant information (if necessary under an NDA)
• agree first on terms of the relationship and expectations to all parties, and then consider how you can make them legally robust
• compile a list of specific laws and regulation the contract needs to comply to
• negotiate in several iterations, allowing time to consider implications and propose amendments
• keep minutes of each meeting to reduce the potential for misconceptions
  

Support The Full Lifecycle Of The Collaboration:

Any contract can be changed at any time, provided all signatories agree. However, it greatly reduces the potential for conflict later if you consider the full lifecycle of the collaboration in the contract:

• make provisions for successfully getting started by defining onboarding procedures
• have a probationary period, where all parties can try out the collaboration, and a clear protocol for how each party can terminate the contract during the probationary period
• define and build into the contract regular review meetings where signatories come together to share learning and decide how the contract might be amended to adapt to changing context
• include procedures for breach of contract
• consider making available alternative means for dispute resolution, e.g. mediation, conciliation or arbitration
• consider limiting the contract to a fixed term after which the contract expires and can be renewed if required
  

Culture

Every contract influences the culture of the collaboration it governs, even when it appears to only describe what needs to be delivered:

• intentionally create the culture of collaboration you want to see by including expectations on how things should be done
• align the contract to the organizational culture (of all parties) and to legal requirements
• build contracts that enable and encourage accountability
  

If you find that standard contracts in your industry are misaligned with the culture you want to create, build your own repository of templates for contracts and clauses and consider sharing it with others, so that you can leverage past experience when creating new contracts.

Support Role

Apply the role pattern to external contractors.

• clarify and describe the driver for the role
• create a domain description
• if valuable, implement a selection process
• limit the term of the contract
• build in regular peer reviews
  

External contractors consent to take on their role.

Bylaws

Secure S3 principles and patterns in your bylaws as needed to protect legal integrity and organizational culture

Consider:

• consent and equivalence in decision making
• selection process for leadership roles
• organizational structure, values and principles
• influence of owners or shareholders
• sharing gains and costs

Building Organizations

Circle

A circle is a self-governing and semi-autonomous team of equivalent people who collaborate to account for a domain.

A circle:

• may be permanent or temporary
• may be self-organizing
• is responsible for its own development and its body of agreements
• semi-autonomous:
  
• A circle's members act within the constraints of their domain.
• Each circle can create value autonomously.
• self-governing:
• A circle's members continuously decide together what to do to account for their domain, and set constraints on how and when things will be done.
• equivalence of circle members:
• All members of a circle are equally accountable for governance of the circle's domain.
  

Role

Delegate responsibility for a domain to individuals.

A role is an area of responsibility (a domain) that is delegated to an individual (the role keeper), who has autonomy to decide and act within the constraints of the role's domain.

The role keeper leads in creating a strategy for how they will account for their domain. They evolve their strategy in collaboration with the delegator.

A role is a simple way for an organization (or team) to delegate recurring tasks or a specific area of work and decision making to one of its members.

• people can take responsibility for more than one role
• instead of formally setting up a new team, it's sometimes simpler to just share one role between several people
• role keepers are selected by consent and for a limited term
• peers support one another to develop in the roles they keep
  

A role keeper may maintain a governance backlog, and a logbook to record and help them evolve their approach toward delivering value.

Note: In S3, guidelines, processes or protocols created by individuals in roles are treated as agreements.

Linking

Enable the flow of information and influence between two teams.

A team selects one of its members to represent their interests in the governance decisions of another team.

Double Linking

Enable the two-way flow of information and influence between two teams.

Two interdependent teams each select one of their members to represent their interests in the governance decisions of the other team.

Double linking enables equivalence between two teams and can be used to draw out valuable information in hierarchical structures.

Representative

Select a team member to participate in the governance decision making of another team to enable the flow of information and influence.

Representatives (a.k.a. links):

• stand for the interests of one team in another team
• are selected for a limited term
• participate in the governance decision making of the team they link with, and can:
• raise items for the agenda
• participate in forming proposals
• raise objections to proposals and existing agreements
  

Open Team

Intentionally account for a domain by invitation rather than assignment, and request that those invited contribute when they can.

An open team is a group of people who are invited to contribute to the work and governance done in a domain when they can.

The delegator of the domain creates an invitation that clarifies:

• the primary driver, key responsibilities and constraints of the open team's domain
• who is invited to contribute (the members of the open team)
• constraints relating to the delegator's participation in the open team's governance
  

Depending on the constraints set by the delegator, contributors may only organize and do work, or take part in governance as well.

The delegator is accountable for conducting regular reviews to support effectiveness of work and any decision-making in the open team.

Helping Team

Bring together a team of equivalent people with the mandate to execute on a specific set of requirements defined by a delegator.

A helping team:

• is a way for a delegator to expand their capacity
• may be self-organizing, or guided by a coordinator chosen by the delegator
• is governed by the delegator
• benefits from a clearly defined domain
  

Members of the helping team:

• can object to the delegator's decisions that affect them
• can add items to the delegator's governance backlog
• may be invited to select a representative to participate in the governance decision making of the delegator

Bringing in S3

Adapt Patterns To Context

Adapt and evolve S3 patterns to suit your specific context.

Ensure that everyone affected:

• understands why changing the pattern is necessary (or helpful)
• is present or represented when deciding how to change it
• uses S3 principles as a guide for adaptation.
  

Run experiments with adaptations for long enough to learn about the benefits and any potential pitfalls.

Share valuable adaptations with the S3 community.

Create a Pull-System For Organizational Change

Create an environment that invites and enables members of the organization to drive change.

Change things when there is value in doing so:

• Bring in patterns that help to solve current and important problems.
• Don't break what's already working!
• Meet everyone where they are…
• …and let them choose their own pace.

Be The Change

Lead by example.

Behave and act in the ways you would like others to behave and act.

Invite Change

Clarify the reason for change and invite people to participate.

When making the invitation:

• be transparent about the reason for the change
• clarify expectations and constraints
• avoid coercion or manipulation
• acknowledge any skepticism and doubts
  

Include the people involved and affected in regular evaluation of outcomes.

Open Space For Change

Invite everyone to create and run experiments for evolving the organization.

• clarify the driver for change
• schedule regular open space events:
• invite all members to create and run experiments
• define constraints for the experiments that enable development of a sociocratic and agile mindset (e.g. S3 principles)
• review and learn from experimentation in the next open space
  

Continuous Improvement Of Work Process

Reveal drivers and establish a metrics-based pull-system for organizational change through continuously improving and refining the work process.

• introduce the principle of consent and Navigate via Tension to evolve work process in a team
• consider selecting a facilitator to guide group processes, and choosing values to guide behavior
• initiate a process of continuous improvement, e.g. through Kanban or regular retrospectives
• members of the team pull in S3 patterns as required
• if valuable, iteratively expand the scope of the experiment to other teams
• intentionally look out for impediments
  

Waste And Continuous Improvement

Waste is anything unnecessary for - or standing in the way of - a (more) effective response to a driver.

Waste exists in various forms and on different levels of abstraction (tasks, processes, organizational structure, mental models…)

Establishing a process for the ongoing elimination of waste enables natural evolution of an organization towards greater effectiveness and adaptation to changing context.

Defining Agreements

S3 promotes a hypothesis-driven approach to decision making.

Record Agreements

Record the details of agreements you make, so you can recall them later, evaluate the outcome and evolve the agreement over time.

An agreement is an agreed upon guideline, process, protocol or policy designed to guide the flow of value.

Note: In S3, guidelines, processes or protocols created by individuals in roles are also treated as agreements.

Keep records of agreements up to date, e.g. in a logbook.
What to record?

Record agreements with adequate detail so that important information can be recalled later.

At the very least include a summary of the driver, a description of what's been agreed, who is responsible for what, evaluation criteria and a review date.

Depending on the scope and significance of the agreement, consider including all of the following:

• A title for the agreement
• Description of the driver
• Date of creation (and/or version)
• Date of expiry or due date (if relevant)
• Review date (or frequency)
• Who is responsible for what?
• A description of the agreement, including:
• Any relevant requirements and expectations
• Action items
• Resources
• Constraints
• Intended outcomes
• Deliverables
• Rationale
• Evaluation criteria (and potentially concerns)
• Appendix (if helpful)
• Background information
• Previous versions of the agreements
• References
  

Clarify and Develop Strategy

A strategy is a high level approach for how people will create value to successfully account for a domain.

It is usually more effective if a team or role keeper lead in developing their own strategy.

A strategy often includes a description of the intended outcome of implementing that strategy.

As the delegator shares accountability for domains they delegate, it's valuable they review a delegatee's strategy, to check for potential impediments and suggest ways it could be improved.

A strategy is a shared agreement between delegator(s) and delegatee(s) that is regularly reviewed and updated as necessary (pivot or persevere)

Strategies are validated and refined through experimentation and learning.

Clarify and Develop Domains

A clear understanding of people's area of responsibility and autonomy enables greater efficiency, effective collaboration, and agility throughout an organization.

To make better use of their limited time, energy, and resources, people in organizations distribute work between them by creating roles or forming teams, units, or departments. In the process they are explicitly or implicitly defining domains - distinct areas of responsibility and autonomy.

Any role or team's purpose is to contribute towards the overall purpose of the organization by taking care of a specific organizational need. Inadequately defined domains typically lead to stakeholders having different assumptions about areas of responsibility and autonomy. As a consequence, both collaboration and distribution of work suffers because of missed dependencies, double work, or work not done at all.

Clarifying domains makes the contract between delegator and delegatee(s) explicit, which enables everyone to learn about what works and what doesn't, because everyone understands who is responsible for what. A clear domain description with a reasonable amount of detail is a necessary prerequisite for people to successfully evaluate and continuously improve their work.

A simple way for supporting stakeholders in developing shared understanding about the various aspects of a domain is by creating a domain description that contains information about:

• Primary Driver (and/or Purpose)
• Key Responsibilities
• Dependencies
• External Constraints
• Key Challenges
• Key Deliverables
• Competencies, Qualities and Skills
• Key Resources
• Delegator Responsibilities
• Key Metrics
• Evaluation
  

Consider designing domains with the minimal constraints necessary and always choose constraints that enable people to maximally create value.

The delegatee(s) may do whatever they think will help them achieve their purpose, unless it is outside the domain of the organization, explicitly forbidden, they violate somebody else's (explicit) domain, or impede other people's contribution to the organization in some other way. Things that are forbidden may include explicit constraints laid out in the domain description, any other agreements the delegatee(s) needs to keep, or legal and regulatory requirements.

When to clarify domains

Consider clarifying domains whenever you identify that stakeholders have differing assumptions about the domain of an existing role, position, team, department, or unit, or even about the domain of the organization as a whole.

As a delegator, clarify any new domains that you intend to delegate.

When retrospectively clarifying domains that have already been delegated to people, a delegator can gain valuable insights by inviting the delegatee(s) to describe the domain from their perspective first.

Regularly evaluate and evolve domains

People's understanding of the organization is limited and the environment is always changing. Therefore it is essential that delegator, delegatee(s) and other relevant stakeholders regularly take the time to evaluate and evolve both the design of the domain and how people account for it as their understanding of the domain deepens.

People might do a great job of accounting for a domain in the way it's designed, but the design of the domain might be primitive or flawed. On the other hand, even if the design of a domain is poor in the first iteration, through this process it will improve over time.

Clarify the domain of the whole organization

All domains in an organization are nested within the overall domain of the organization, which can be designed deliberately in the early stages of the organization, or clarified retrospectively. An organization's domain needs to enable the members of the organization to effectively fulfill its purpose and typically needs to be evolved over time.

Consider explicitly clarifying the organization's overall domain if you discover that key stakeholders have differing understanding about it, or when changes to that domain need to be made. In order to do this it's necessary to identify the overall delegator of the organization.

An organization's domain should be designed with the customer and business model in mind, and needs to factor in environmental constraints (e.g. legal, economic, market, competition, etc).

Regularly evaluate the organization's domain to support those responsible for the organization to quickly learn and adapt.

One way of clarifying an organization's domain is by filling out an S3 Organization Canvas.

Useful aspects to clarify in a Domain Description

Primary Driver

Explain how the delegatee(s) will contribute to the overall purpose of the organization, by clarifying the specific organizational need they (will) take care of.

Describe the main organizational driver the delegatee(s) (will) respond to, for example using the pattern Describe Organizational Drivers.

Aim for one or two sentences, so that the information is easy to remember and process.

Besides the summary, more details about the driver may be kept in the logbook.

Key Responsibilities

List all essential work and decision making being delegated, in a way that enables measuring success.

Key responsibilities are those responsibilities that stakeholders consider essential to take care of for the delegatee(s) to successfully account for the domain.

Describe explicitly why each of these responsibilities matter for the organization and the value that taking care of them brings to the organization.

Responsibilities should be specific and measurable, so they can be reviewed and developed as required.

Dependencies

Make explicit the essential dependencies between this domain and other parts of the organization, so that the delegatee(s) can collaborate on managing those dependencies with the other stakeholders.
Consider:

• Internal and external customers (those who consume the team's output)
• Providers of products or services essential to the work of the delegatee(s).
• Shared resources

External Constraints

Describe important constraints to the autonomy and influence of the delegatee(s).

External constraints might be fixed or negotiable. They may refer to customer requirements, to the outside world, to other essential stakeholders in the organization, to overarching responsibilities the delegatee(s) may have, or to the preference of the delegator.
Some examples:

• Specific decisions requiring authorization
• Legal, time, or budget constraints
• Audits and or expected reporting
• Strategy of the delegator and the whole organization
• Organizational values
  

Key Challenges

What are the known or anticipated challenges that the delegatee(s) might face when accounting for this domain: relating to the outside world, the rest of the organization and sometimes to a specific delegatee?

• risks and vulnerabilities
• variables (e.g. weather)
• uncertainty and complexity
• lack of skills or resources.
  

Note: there are always some risks that you need to manage. Try to list at least 3!

Key Deliverables

What does the team or role provide to respond to it's primary driver, the key responsibilities and the key challenges faced?

As a delegator, consider carefully to what degree you will leave the design of deliverables to the delegatee(s), who can then define deliverables and add them to the domain description later. Letting the delegatee(s) lead on the design of deliverables often frees them up to deliver value according to their strengths and interest. Describe each deliverable with a reasonable amount of detail and ensure that deliverables are valuable to the stakeholders that receive them. You can start with a sentence or two about each deliverable but eventually you might need to describe them in more detail.

Competencies, qualities and skills

What competencies, qualities and skills are required – or at least preferable – to successfully account for this domain?

Key Resources

Essential resources the delegatee(s) can make use of in accounting for their domain, e.g. time allocation, budget, privileges, facilities, hardware, software, etc.

Delegator Responsibilities

When delegating a domain to others, the delegator still retains overall accountability for the domain and often has a valuable contribution to make toward accounting for that domain.

List the exact responsibilities the delegator takes on in support of the delegatee(s) accounting for this domain.
Consider:

• Opportunities for learning and development and support offered to the delegatee(s).

• Things essential for successfully accounting for the domain that only the delegator can do.
• Things that make the delegatees' life easier and are worthwhile including.
  

Describe the delegator's responsibilities in specific and measurable terms, so that they can be reviewed and developed as required.

Key Metrics

Key Metrics are critical indicators of progress. They relate to the primary driver (and/or purpose), key responsibilities, challenges, deliverables, and delegator responsibilities defined for this domain.

Key Metrics are monitored and assessed frequently. They are relevant criteria for evaluating outcomes and success in scheduled reviews (see "Evaluation" below).

For each metric, consider the actual numbers that are monitored, as well as the meaning of those numbers in relation to the domain (targets, acceptable range, or tolerance).

Aim to define simple and specific metrics that you can take regularly (preferably daily).

Evaluation

Regularly evaluate the outcome resulting from activity in this domain and use what you learn to improve creation of value.

Describe when and how evaluations take place and who should be involved.

In the evaluation, ensure you consider the following aspects:

• The value the delegatee(s) brought to the organization by accounting for the domain.
• The delegatees' work processes, and their collaboration with each other, with the delegator, and with the rest of the organization.
• How well the delegator takes care of their responsibilities.
• The design of the domain itself (and potentially the design of other related domains).
• The delegatees' competencies and skills in relation to the domain.
• The strategy the delegatee(s) follows to account for this domain.
  

Define:

• A schedule or frequency for reviews.
• Additional helpful evaluation criteria in addition the key metrics.
• Any other relevant aspects to consider for the evaluation.
• Who should take part in the evaluation.
• A process for evaluation (e.g. Peer Review).
• Consider including a term (for a role).
  

Make sure to record and monitor when a domain is due review and add these dates to your logbook.

Additional Information

Consider also including the following information to the domain description

• Domain Name
• Delegator (name of the circle or role; e.g. R&D, Project Manager, CEO, etc)
• Delegatee(s) (if they are known at the time)
• Date of latest update to the domain description
• Author's Names
• Term (for a role)

Clarify Intended Outcome

Be explicit about the expected results of agreements, activities, projects and strategies.

Agree on and record a concise description of the intended outcome.

The intended outcome can be used to define Evaluation Criteria and metrics for reviewing actual outcome.

Describe Deliverables

Clearly describe any deliverables related to an agreement to support shared understanding of expectations.

A deliverable is a product, service, component or material provided in response to an organizational driver.

When describing deliverables:

• include the necessary amount of detail
• reference other documents when helpful or necessary
  

Explicitly describing deliverables can be useful for improving communication and collaboration within the organization, with customer and with external partners.

Example: A popular way to describe deliverables in software-engineering are so-called user stories, which focus on the need of users in relation to a software system. User stories are developed in dialogue between a customer (or their representative, the product manager or "product owner"), and the software developer(s). What is written down is usually one sentence to remind the team of the user need, and acceptance criteria, a list of requirements for the new feature, which the customer will then use in a review meeting to decide whether or not they accept the new feature as delivered.

Evaluation Criteria

Develop well-defined evaluation criteria to determine if acting on an agreement had the desired effect.

• go for simple and unambiguous criteria and document them (to avoid discussion or unnecessary dialogue when reviewing your agreements)
• define actionable metrics to continuously track effects and spot deviations from intended outcome
• consider adding criteria which make it explicit when the outcome of an agreement would be considered unsuccessful
• when reviewing an agreement, consider evolving the evaluation criteria based on what you have learned

Logbook

Maintain a coherent and accessible system that stores all information required for collaboration.

A logbook is a (digital) system to store all information relevant for running an organization and its teams. The logbook is accessible to all members of an organization, and information is kept confidential only when there is good reason to do so.

Common platforms for logbooks are Wikis (e.g. DokuWiki, MediaWiki, Confluence), Content Management Systems (e.g. Wordpress), G Suite, Evernote or even Trello.

Logbook Contents

Content relating to the whole organization:

• primary driver, strategy and organizational values
• organizational structure (domains and the connections between them)
• agreements
  

Content relating to a specific team or role:

• the domain description and strategy
• agreements (including delegatees' domain descriptions, strategies and development plans)
• backlogs and other information relating to work and governance

Logbook Keeper

Select a member of your team to be specifically accountable for keeping up to date records of all information the team requires.

The logbook keeper is accountable for maintaining a team's logbook by:

• recording details of agreements, domain descriptions, selections, evaluation dates, minutes of meetings etc.
• organizing relevant information and improving the system when valuable
• keeping records up to date
• ensuring accessibility to everyone in the team (and in the wider organization as agreed)
• attending to all technical aspects of logbook keeping

Meeting Formats

Retrospective

Dedicate time to reflect on past experience, learn, and decide how to improve work process.

• output: changes to work process, new tasks, on-the-fly agreements, and drivers requiring an agreement
• facilitated meeting (~1hr)
• regular intervals (1-4 weeks)
• adapt to situation and context

Five Phases of a Retrospective Meeting

1. Set the stage
2. Gather data
3. Generate insights
4. Decide what to do
5. Close the retrospective

Governance Meeting

Teams meet at regular intervals to decide what to do to achieve objectives, and to set constraints on how and when things will be done.

A governance meeting is usually:

• facilitated
• prepared in advance
• timeboxed for a duration of 90-120 minutes
• scheduled every 2-4 weeks
  

A typical governance meeting includes:

• opening: check in with each other and attune to the objective of the meeting
• administrative matters
  • check for consent to the last meeting's minutes
  • agree on a date for the next meeting
  • check for any last-minute agenda items and for consent to the agenda
• agenda items
• meeting evaluation: reflect on your interactions, celebrate successes and share suggestions for improvement
• closing: check in with each other before you leave the meeting

Typical agenda items include:

• any short reports
• evaluation of existing agreements due review
• selecting people to roles
• new drivers requiring decisions to be made, including:
  • forming proposals
  • making agreements
  • designing domains and deciding how to account for them (e.g. new roles, circles, teams or open teams)

Daily Standup

Meet daily to organize work, facilitate learning and improve your productivity and effectiveness.

• timeboxed (usually 15 minutes)
• held daily at the same time
• the team gathers around a visible project management board/tool to:
  • organize daily work
  • address impediments/blocks
  • adapt existing agreements or create new agreements on the spot

Planning And Review Meetings

People meet at regular intervals (1-4 weeks) in timeboxed meetings to plan and review work.

Planning meeting: select and estimate work items for the next iteration.

Review meeting: review completed work items and decide on re-work and changes for the next iteration.

Coordination Meeting

Meet on a regular basis (usually weekly) for reporting on and coordinating work across domains.

• facilitate the meeting (timebox dialogue and use rounds where valuable)
• when useful, compile an agenda before the meeting and share it with attendees in advance
  • include details of any prerequisites that can help attendees to prepare
  • further agenda items may come up when hearing status reports
    

Agenda items:

• cross domain synchronization and alignment
• prioritization and distribution of work
• responding to impediments

Meeting Practices

Rounds

In a group meeting, go around the circle giving everyone the chance to speak in turn.

Rounds are a group facilitation technique to maintain equivalence and support effective dialogue.

Be clear on the purpose and intended outcome of each round.

Sit in a circle, begin each round with a different person, and change direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) to bring variation to who speaks first and last, and to the order of contributions.

Facilitate Meetings

Choose someone to facilitate a meeting to help the group maintain focus, keep the meeting on track and draw out the participant's creativity and wisdom.

Before each meeting, prepare an agenda of topics, and select a facilitator to:

• hold the space, keep the time and navigate the agenda during the meeting
• facilitate a suitable activity for each topic
• facilitate an evaluation at the end of the meeting
  

Consider selecting a facilitator for a specific term. Even an inexperienced facilitator can make a positive difference.

Prepare For Meetings

Prepare in advance to make meetings more effective.

Some considerations for successfully preparing a meeting:

• clarify and communicate the driver for, and intended outcome of the meeting
• decide who to invite
• create an agenda
• schedule the meeting enough in advance, so people have time to prepare
• choose an appropriate duration for the meeting
• be clear who will facilitate the meeting, who will take minutes and who will take care of any follow-up
  

Preparing an Agenda

Involve people in preparing and prioritizing an agenda and send it out in advance
For each agenda item agree on:

• the driver
• the intended outcome
• the process
• the time you want to spend on it
• what people need to do to prepare
  

Support the Participants' Preparation

• consider what can be done in advance to prepare for the meeting
• notify people about any expectations and prerequisites
• make any resources available that people may need for preparation
  

As a participant

• consider the pattern Artful Participation
• review the agenda and consider how you can contribute to each item
• bring up objections to an agenda, and if possible resolve them before the meeting
• review improvement suggestions from the last meeting's evaluation and consider how you might act on them

Check In

Help people to become aware of themselves and others, and to focus, be present and engage.

To check in, briefly disclose something about what's up for you and how you are, revealing thoughts, feelings, distractions or needs.

Checking in may take the form of an opening or closing round in a group meeting, or just a brief exchange in a 1:1 meeting.

You can also call for a group check-in during a meeting, or even choose to individually check in whenever you think this is valuable for the group.

In a group check-in, allow people to pass if they choose.

When checking in, in a new setting, people can also say their name and where they are coming from, as a way to introduce themselves. (Tip: Avoid talking about function, rank etc unless there is a reason to do so).

Evaluate Meetings

Take time for learning at the end of each meeting or workshop.

Reflect on interactions, celebrate successes and share suggestions for improvement before closing the meeting.

• reserve 5 minutes for 1 hour, and 15 minutes for a full-day workshop
• record learning and review it before the next meeting
  

Short formats you can use:

• more of/less of/start/stop/keep
• positive/critical/suggested improvements

Evaluate Meetings: Long Format

Ask everyone in a round to reflect on any or all of the following topics in a brief sharing, and report key points you'd like to remember for next time:

• effectiveness and format
• facilitation and participation
• emotional tone
• appreciations and achievements (I liked…)
• growing edges and improvement suggestions (I wish…)
• wild ideas and radical suggestions (What if…)

Meeting Host

Select someone to take responsibility for the preparation and follow-up of meetings, workshops or other events.

A person may take on the role of meeting host for a specific event or for several events over a period of time.

Responsibilities Of A Meeting Host

Preparation:

• identify goals and deliverables
• prepare and distribute agenda
• identify and invite the participants
• estimate the time required and schedule the meeting/workshop
• book the location (and transportation if required)
• set up the space and provide required materials and information
• ensure selection of a facilitator and a notetaker to record minutes, if appropriate
  

After the meeting: clean up location, return keys, tie up all the loose ends, and ensure minutes are distributed.

Governance Facilitator

Select someone to facilitate governance meetings.

A governance facilitator:

• ensures governance meetings stay on track and are evaluated
• is (usually) selected by a team from among it members (and for a specific term)
• familiarizes themselves with the Governance Backlog
• often invites others to facilitate some agenda items
  

As a governance facilitator, consider learning about and using the following patterns from S3 to handle governance effectively:

• Rounds
• Proposal Forming
• Consent Decision-Making
• Role Selection
• Evaluate Meetings
• Resolve Objections
• Peer Review

Governance Backlog

A governance backlog is a visible, prioritized list of items (drivers) that are related to governing a domain and require attention.

A governance backlog contains:

• matters requiring a decision
• proposals to create and consider
• selecting people for roles
  

Note: Upcoming reports and agreements due review are usually added directly to the agenda (rather than the backlog).

Organizing Work

Backlog

A backlog (to-do-list) is a list of (often prioritized) uncompleted work items (deliverables), or (drivers) that need to be addressed.

Consider making backlogs visible, not only to other members of a team, but also to the wider organization.

Types of backlog include:

• governance backlog
• operations backlog
• sprint backlog
• product backlog
• impediments backlog
  

Implementation:

• analog backlog: sticky notes on a wall, or index cards, magnets and whiteboard
• digital backlog: e.g. Google Sheets, Trello, Kanban Flow, Jira, Asana
  

Each item on a (prioritized) backlog typically contains:

• a short description of a deliverable or a driver
• a unique reference number (or link) for each work item
• (the order of work items)
• dependencies to other work items or projects
• due date (if necessary)
• (optional) a measure for value
• (optional) a measure for investment (often an estimate of time or complexity)

Prioritize Backlogs

Order all uncompleted work items with the most important items first, then pull work items from the top whenever there is new capacity.

No two items can be of equal importance, meaning it is necessary to agree on priorities and make tough choices.

A prioritized backlog helps to maintain focus on the most important items.

Visualize Work

Maintain a system that allows all stakeholders to review the state of all work items currently pending, in progress or complete.

• valuable for self-organization and pull-systems
• system must be accessible to everyone affected
• analog: post-its on a wall, or index cards, magnets and white board
• digital: Trello, Kanbanery, Leankit, Jira, Google Sheets, etc.
  

Things to track:

• types of work items (e.g. customer request, project tasks, reporting tasks, rework)
• start date (and due date if necessary)
  
• priorities
• stages of work (e.g. “to do”, “in progress”, “review” and “done”)
• impediments/blocks
• who is working on which items
• agreements and expectations guiding workflow (e.g. definition of done, policy, quality standards)
• use colors, symbols, highlights etc.
  

Pull-System For Work

People pull in new work items when they have capacity (instead of having work pushed or assigned to them.

Prioritize pending work items to ensure that important items are worked on first.

Pulling in work prevents overloading the system, especially when work in progress (WIP) per person or team is limited.

Limit Work in Progress

Limit the number of work items in any stage of your work process.

Work in progress includes:

• the number of items in a backlog
• concurrent projects or tasks for teams or individuals
• products in a portfolio
  

When an action would exceed an agreed upon limit of work items in progress, this needs to be brought up with the team before continuing.

Timebox Activities

Set a time constraint to stay focused, bring consciousness to the time you have and how you use it.

A timebox is a fixed period of time spent focused on a specific activity (which is not necessarily finished by the end of the timebox).

• to get value out of the timebox, be clear what you want to achieve
• agree on the duration of the timebox and visualize time
• negotiate and agree to extend a timebox before the time is up
• break down longer activities into manageable timeboxes
• consider frequent review of progress
• consider choosing someone (the “time keeper”) to help others stay conscious of time
  

You could timebox:

• meetings, calls, dialogue
• tasks
• experiments
• an attempt to solve a problem
• checking emails
• breaks
• a longer stretch of work (a sprint)

Coordinator

A person fulfilling the role of a coordinator is accountable for coordinating a domain's operations and is selected for a limited term.

The coordinator may be selected by the team itself, or by the delegator.

Several coordinators may collaborate to synchronize work across multiple domains.

Instead of selecting a coordinator, a team may choose to self-organize.

Organizational Structure

Organizational structure is the actual arrangement of domains and their connections. It reflects where power to influence is located, and the channels through which information and influence flow.

Continuously evolve your organization's structure to:

• support the continuous flow of value
• enable effective collaboration around dependencies
• ensure information is available to those who need it
• distribute power to influence as required
  

The basic building blocks for organizational structure are interdependent, connected domains.

Domains can be linked to form a hierarchy or a heterarchy (a.k.a. complex adaptive system, or network, where multiple functional structures can co-exist).

Sociocracy 3.0 describes a variety of structural patterns to grow organizational structure.

• S3's structural patterns apply to different layers of abstraction
• different structural patterns serve different drivers
• structural patterns can be adapted and combined as needed
• more patterns are out there and will be discovered
  
  

Delegate Circle

Delegate making governance decisions affecting multiple domains to representatives selected by those domains.

To make governance decisions on their behalf, stakeholders send representatives to form a delegate circle.

Governance decisions made in a delegate circle are acted upon in the various domains it serves.

Delegate circles provide a way of steering organizations in alignment with the flow of value, and bring a diversity of perspectives to governance decision making.

A delegate circle may bring in other people (e.g. external experts) to help with specific decisions, or even as a member of the circle.

Service Circle

Outsource services required by two or more domains.

A service circle can be populated by members of the domains it serves, and/or by other people too.

Peach Organization

Deliver value in complex and competitive environments through decentralization (of resources and influence) and direct interaction between those creating value and the customers they serve.

Teams in the periphery:

• deliver value in direct exchange with the outside world (customers, partners, communities, municipalities etc.)
• steward the monetary resources and steer the organization
  

The center provides internal services to support the organization.

Domains are linked as required to flow information and influence, and to support collaboration around dependencies.

Double-Linked Hierarchy

Delegate all authority for making governance decisions to self-governing circles, double-linked across all levels of the hierarchy, to transition from an traditional hierarchy towards a structure more suitable for tapping collective intelligence, ensuring equivalence and building engagement.

1. Shift governance decision making from individuals to teams by forming self-governing circles on all levels of your organization.
2. Each circle's members select one of their group to represent their interests and participate in the governance decision making of the next higher circle, and vice versa.
   

A double-linked hierarchy:

• brings equivalence to governance
• maintains the potential for a functional hierarchy (if it enables the flow of value).

Service Organization

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and alignment towards a shared driver (or objective).

• improves potential for equivalence between various entities
• increases cross-departmental/organizational alignment
• supports multi-agency collaboration between departments or organizations with different primary motives, or that are in conflict
• suitable for one-off projects, or ongoing collaboration
  

Note: a service organization is sometimes referred to as a backbone organization.

Fractal Organization

Multiple constituents (organizations or projects) with a common (or similar) primary driver and structure can share learning across functional domains, align action and make high level governance decisions (e.g. overall strategy).
Creating a fractal organization can enable a large network to rapidly respond to changing contexts.

If necessary, the pattern can be repeated to connect multiple fractal organizations into one.

Prerequisites

A fractal organization can be formed either by multiple in(ter-)dependent organizations which share a common (primary) driver, or by multiple branches, departments, or projects within a larger organization.

These constituents (i.e. organizations, branches, departments or projects) need to share at least some - and typically most - functional domains (e.g. accounting, product management, or development).

Tiers

A fractal organization has at least three tiers:

• first tier: the constituents (i.e. organizations, branches, departments or projects)
• second tier: function-specific delegate circles to share learning and to make and evolve agreements on behalf of function-specific domains
• third tier: a cross-functional delegate circle to make and evolve agreements in response to drivers affecting the overall body of constituents

Forming a Fractal Organization

1. Forming the second tier: In each constituent, the members of each common (and significant) functional domain, decide who of them will represent them in a function-specific delegate circle, where they share knowledge and learning, and contribute toward making and evolving agreements. Representatives are selected for a limited term (after which a new selection is made).
2. Forming the third tier: second-tier delegate circles each select a delegate to form the cross-functional delegate circle.

Impact on the organization(s)

Each constituent:

• gains access to a wide array of experience, wisdom and skills to increase effectiveness and innovation.
• can share resources, infrastructure and experience with other constituents according to capacity and need
  

The second and third tier:

• can test decisions simultaneously across multiple instances of a function-specific domain, providing extensive feedback and rapid learning
• organize, align and steer the whole system while preserving autonomy and agency of the individual constituents