Business as Usual and the Antidote
Jul 14, 2025
I’m often surprised at how hard people make things for themselves. For example, we treat sociocracy as some complicated, arcane rule-based system when it’s actually amazingly simple.
Sociocracy basically says “do more of what works and less of what doesn’t.” Simple.
To do that, we lean heavily into Appreciative Inquiry to learn from our experience so far to uncover what works and then distill that into agreements about how it could / should work moving forward. That is, we mostly focus on what we are trying to accomplish and what we can do about it — on what’s working.
But there is also a place for the “anti-agreements” — for looking at what doesn’t work so that we can do less of that.
When implementing sociocracy in a new group, the biggest challenge isn’t learning the new system, it’s letting go of the old one; it’s learning to unlearn all the bad habits that keep us stuck.
We are creatures of habit. We keep trying to do things that just don’t work, even when they consistently lead to the same problems. And then, to add insult to injury, everyone acts surprised and complains about the predictable problems that happened as the result of doing the same thing that led to the same problem as last time.
I call this “Business as Usual.” It’s the organizational embodiment of the Einsteinian Insanity Principle.
Sociocracy lays out a process for developing proposals and agreements that looks different than the “business as usual” process and, therefore, seems strange, clunky and slow to people who are fully steeped in the “business as usual” way. So, maybe it’s worth taking a look at the “business as usual” approach and it’s predictable consequences to understand why we might want to take a little extra time and effort to do things differently.
Your 5 Step Guide to Staying Stuck
Step 1: Sound the alarm!
Most proposals in organizations come from crisis. Something “bad” happens and everyone goes into crisis mode to “fix it” quick. There’s a sort of unspoken assumption that anything outside of standard protocol is a crisis (whether it is or not). This leads to a sense of urgency: “no time to think, run!”
Step 2: Jump to Solution Mode
Because of the sense of urgency, we jump right to solution mode, rarely taking any time at all to explore the problem. Is it actually a problem? What’s going on under the surface? Would it be more effective to solve the problem further upstream in the future before it becomes a crisis? What do we really know about this? Who’s involved? What do they think about it? Is there an opportunity here?
No time! We just need to do something! Anything!
Step 3: Offer the first thing that comes to mind; Debate
Without fully exploring the problem, we start to toss out ideas. Actually, that’s not accurate. Usually, we toss out one idea, then debate. This unintentionally creates conflict. The person (or persons) who offer up the first idea, whether consciously or not, will have an investment and attachment to the idea. No one wants to hear that their baby is ugly.
But on the other side, even if it’s a good idea, when something is presented to you it’s natural to ask a lot of questions just to understand what’s being presented. These questions are innocent enough from the asker’s perspective, but from the presenter’s perspective, they often feel like an attack or worse. They often bring up perspectives that haven’t been considered in the original proposal, so the presenters feel like they have to scramble to cover-up the missing bit or argue that the new perspective isn’t relevant. Similarly, initial conversations will uncover complications that make the “easy” thing feel a lot harder, and there’s a tendency to blame the person for bringing up the facts rather than recognizing that the facts are important considerations.
As soon as there’s a proposal on the table, we’ve created two groups: “for” or “against.” Sometimes, this leads to factions and you now have a cohesion problem. Sometimes, because no one wants there to be two groups, valid concerns get suppressed to avoid “causing problems.” And even if it’s a reasonably good idea, the instant debate means that other potentially better solutions never even see the light of day.
But then the sense of urgency kicks in, and we…
Step 4: Go off half-cocked!
So, now we’re ready. By not exploring the problem and suppressing considerations, we’ve been able to agree on a “solution” in record time. Or mostly agree. There’s some grumbling, of course, but people can’t expect to get their way every time. Can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, etc. etc.
Luckily, we have the authority to force all those nay-sayers to toe the line. In fact, this is the main reason we think we need to place authority in the hands of a few. Otherwise, no one would have the ability to force thru poorly thought out ideas, and then what would happen?
Step 5: Ignore negative feedback
OK, so it turns out our half-baked, rushed plan has some problems. At this point, we’re committed. And even if we weren’t, we still don’t have time to deal with them. The important thing is to push it thru and get it done. Stick to the plan, no matter what. Besides, we have too many other problems to deal with there’s no space to deal with anything until it blows up.
And when it does….
Step 1: Sound the alarm! Repeat.
Of course, there are many variations on this. There’s the “pet project” idea that gets to jump straight to Step 4 (before quickly returning to Step 1) or the alternative Step 3: Say Yes to Everything! which avoids making any decisions and allows entropy to do the work for us.
But the outcome is always the same; we ignore feedback and fail to learn from experience in order to keep making the same mistakes faster and faster. Now with AI, we are able to make the same mistakes at phenomenal speed.
Sociocracy offers the antidote to this:
Go slow to go fast.
First, see tensions as opportunities.
Sociocracy normalizes tensions. They happen all the time and there’s nothing wrong with that. Tensions invite us to explore what’s going on under the surface, to get a deeper sense of the “cause and effect” chain that connects things, and to get a sense of how to balance dynamic drivers more effectively. The Navigating via Tensions process creates a useful container for these conversations that helps the group develop a collective sense of perspective.
More than anything, this approach helps defuse the sense of urgency that leads to bad decisions and create the sense of connection that allows diverse perspectives to be woven together.
Second, take the time to gather considerations
Gathering considerations creates an opportunity for everyone involved to talk about what’s important to them from their perspective. It’s done in a “brainstorming” style. That is, we aren’t debating or evaluating the considerations, just noting them. It allows the group to develop a deeper understanding of issues and the factors that need to be taken into account for proposals. It establishes mutually shared success criteria for proposals.
Third, brainstorm many options, prioritize the high ROE ones
Before investing much energy in developing one (or more) proposal(s), take the time to be creative. Brainstorm lots of options. Think of goofy ways of doing it. Think of the simplest way to do it. Think of the “cadillac” version. Blend ideas and create hybrids.
This point is to avoid closing off options too quickly. Think broadly before narrowing options down.
But then narrow it down. From the options, what gets us the most bang for the buck? Where is the 20% that gets us 80%?
Fourth, take the time to set up the experiment
Sociocracy tells us to treat everything as an experiment. This allows us to maximize learning, and to adapt and evolve effectively. There’s not too much difference between an experiment and a project plan. We simply take the time to document what we think we’re going to do (who does what by when) and what we are hoping to get from it. We take a moment to think it thru enough to avoid unnecessary risk or confusion — good enough for now, safe enough to try.
And this sets us up for…
Fifth, actively gather and incorporate feedback
Take the time to pause and learn from experience — both the good and the bad. What seems to be working well? Is there a way to grow or support that? What isn’t working? Can we tweak it or let it go? What does this tell us about what’s really going on? Are we moving in the right direction or do we need some course correction?
And that leads us seamlessly back to recognizing any tensions as opportunities for learning and refinement.
So, we replace the Business As Usual model by:
- Welcoming and navigating via tensions to explore and understand deep drivers
- Gathering considerations to understand the problem from the perspective of those affected.
- Brainstorm many options; prioritize high ROE ones.
- (Only then) Develop detailed proposals
- Get consent of those affected — good enough for now, safe enough to try
- Proactively seek feedback about expected results and concerns
Many people balk at this simply because we modern folks are so conditioned to rush to the solution that anything else feels slow and cumbersome. But in experience, the process is actually far faster and more efficient than the Business as Usual model. I can lead a group thru navigating a tension, gathering considerations, brainstorming and prioritizing options in less time than it takes to undo the hard feelings that happen when a proposal goes south. In many cases, it takes me longer to convince folks to let go of the Business as Usual model than it does to do the sociocracy process.
Learning to unlearn is key to it all.