Just because responsibility is delegated to someone doesn’t necessarily mean that the responsibility is also taken up. Effectively distributing responsibilities within companies or teams works well with the method I want to introduce to you in this article.
Before diving into the method, let me briefly outline the problem it aims to address.
Imagine that responsibility for a specific issue has been delegated to someone, but nothing happens. Why is that? Some of the many possible reasons might include:
- The person doesn’t have time – perhaps because they are overwhelmed with other tasks.
- The person lacks the necessary expertise – they may have strengths, but not in this area.
- The person isn’t motivated – maybe the task was assigned without consulting them.
- The team doesn’t accept the person in this role – perhaps due to their age, lack of tenure, or other biases.
- The person lacks the personal qualities needed to fulfill the responsibility – they may be insecure, indecisive, or conflict-averse.
- And so on.
How do such unfavorable situations arise? Here, too, various scenarios are conceivable. The way we delegate responsibility – or who delegates it – comes with both advantages and disadvantages. Let me sketch a few examples to make the underlying problem more tangible:
- If management offers someone a chance to take on responsibility, it’s questionable whether that person feels they can say "no." Even when valid reasons exist to decline, saying "no" to a superior can often be difficult, especially if it’s presented as a directive rather than a question. At the same time, the person might feel flattered by the offer and become overconfident in their abilities.
- If responsibility is simply put up for grabs and the team is asked for volunteers, you might find that no one steps forward, or an unsuitable person does – someone you then have to turn down, potentially demotivating them. It’s also common to see the same people volunteering repeatedly, either because they can’t bear to wait or because they believe they’re the only suitable candidate.
- A majority vote could also determine who takes on responsibility. However, valid objections from individuals might be overlooked in the process.
The key point is this: we need to carefully consider how we delegate responsibility – something we unfortunately do far too infrequently.
When it comes to distributing responsibility, we should be clear about the outcome we want to achieve. Are we merely looking for someone we can hold accountable if things go wrong? Or are we instead seeking someone who is genuinely willing to take on the responsibility, someone who is truly committed to the cause and wants to ensure its success?
Effective Distribution of Responsibility in Theory
The latter is precisely what we aimed to achieve at Pentacor. With the "Sociocratic Election," we discovered a method that brings us closer to this goal. As we will see shortly, the value of this approach lies in three key success factors: voluntariness, self-determination, and trust.
Just as you cannot tell someone they are now a revolutionary, you cannot assign someone the task of taking responsibility. Responsibility is something one voluntarily accepts. - BORIS GLOGER
How Does It Work?
Everyone gathers for the election (ideally in person), and one person, who acts as the election facilitator, has taken care of all the preparations. ("Everyone" does not necessarily mean literally everyone but at least those directly affected. This likely includes the potential candidates and the people who will interact with the role.)
A clear definition of the election topic at the start of the process is crucial and must be clear to all participants:
- What is the scope of the responsibility to be taken on?
- What tasks are involved?
- How many people are being sought?
- For what period?
Additionally, it has proven helpful in our experience to gather input beforehand from all eligible participants on the requirements the tasks and responsibilities demand of a person or group.
Following this, everyone submits their nominations in writing, which are then openly presented. This is not a secret ballot – all cards are on the table. (Incidentally, self-nomination is explicitly allowed.)
As part of the presentation, participants provide positive reasoning, which is about expressing appreciation and highlighting the nominee’s relevant strengths. (A word of caution: the minimum prerequisite for this method is genuine mutual respect and regard within the team.)
Once all nominations have been presented, the election facilitator proposes a candidate for the role. This proposal is then immediately discussed to determine whether it achieves consent among all participants. Please note: consent is not the same as consensus. We are not looking for the collective favorite solution but rather one that is tolerable and acceptable to everyone.
With the candidate’s agreement, the election is then concluded.
Below is an outline of a possible process for a sociocratic election as described by John A. Buck & Gerard Endenburg:
.jpg)
Effective Distribution of Responsibility in Practice
So much for the theoretical process. However, keep in mind that this method stems from sociocracy, which is based on self-organization and natural hierarchies. If your organization, like ours, is in the middle of a transformation process (feel free to read my blog post on this topic), ensure that management or leadership is on board with the procedure and supports its outcomes.
Be aware that such cultural change often resembles a chicken-and-egg problem. A pre-existing mindset of self-organization among team members significantly enhances the likelihood of positive experiences with this and similar methods. On the other hand, implementing these methods collaboratively and achieving positive results can also accelerate the transformation process. When properly guided and facilitated, they can actively contribute to fostering cultural change.
No matter where you are on your journey, make sure all participants share a clear, unified mindset before starting. After all, societal norms and education systems tend to set the stage in less-than-ideal ways. Anyone participating in a sociocratic election must be prepared to let go of conservative patterns of thinking, such as:
- Are we looking for someone to hold accountable? No. We’re looking for someone who genuinely wants to give their best.
- Are we searching for the perfect candidate? No. We’re searching for the best possible candidate.
- Is it about filling a position? No. It’s about assigning a responsible role.
(If you’re unfamiliar with the concept of roles, it’s worth exploring. In short, roles are “containers for responsibilities.” For example, the Product Owner in Scrum is a role.)
Once the mindset is aligned, nothing stands in the way of a successful sociocratic election. Together, everyone can use consent-based decision-making to determine who is best suited to fill the role.
This method has convinced me, even though we encountered some stumbling blocks before it truly felt effective and the sociocratic election process could unleash its full potential.
My Recommendations
- Start with a demo!
- Practice with a small group first!
- Choose a lightweight topic to begin with! (e.g., the role of meeting facilitator for team sessions)
What Convinces Me?
Through the nomination process, people experience recognition and respect from their colleagues on an equal footing. It’s an expression of trust and encouragement. Participants learn about strengths that others see in them – and that’s fantastic. It motivates both the elected candidates and the other nominees. Even the voters benefit, as they see their voices being heard and making an impact.
The result? Everyone knows what to expect from others and what is expected of them. This ensures a high level of acceptance for the election outcome.
That said, I won’t sugarcoat the challenges. To be honest, my experience is that it takes time, energy, and patience – for everyone involved. However, with practice, the process becomes noticeably more efficient.
Although the process is both empowering and motivating, during its implementation, participants may experience a mix of emotions such as caution, exhilaration, frustration, relief, fear, and gratitude. Careful planning can minimize these tensions and conflicts as the process unfolds. - JOHN A. BUCK & GERARD ENDENBURG.
Personally, I believe in this method and want to support my team in growing through it. Developing Pentacor’s organization in this way is, by the way, a role my team assigned to me through a sociocratic election. This vote of confidence deeply motivates me to take on this responsibility.
We, the pentacor GmbH, are a learning organization in the midst of a transformation process. Do you want to learn more, exchange ideas, or share your thoughts? Don’t hesitate – we’d love hearing from you!
