The Beauty of Decision-Making with Uninformed Wisdom

Or, What Sociocracy Taught Me About Intuition, Fear and Collective Knowing.

I was asked to write down my choice for the leader of a three-week class. I knew almost nothing about the people in the room. The decision was minor, temporary, and easily reversible. My nervous system reacted as though I was deciding someone's fate.

For context, I am part of an intentional community, which is a planned community of people living together with common values and purpose. Our community uses a consent-based governance system called sociocracy. It organizes people into circles that make decisions through consent. This is a story about how a seemingly banal decision-making exercise using sociocracy became a doorway into more freedom in my decision-making and a discovery of the value of my own wisdom.

It is Possible to Make Decisions That are Good Enough

The tagline used in sociocracy is “good enough for now; safe enough to try.” This idea came as a shock to me, as I need to research things for (sometimes literally) years to make a decision. It gave me the possibility of a lower bar on what it takes to make a decision.

Good enough for now; safe enough to try.

Sociocracy uses a group decision tool that says when a vote happens, you don't need to love the decision. You only need to check if you need to object because the decision is not in alignment with the values of the group/organization. In addition, it doesn't need to be your preferred strategy. It just needs to be within your area of willingness to try.  If it is a real tough sell, it can be tried out for a limited time with some sort of assessment, so you don't have to accept the decision forever.

I have heard Miki Kashtan use the example of choosing pizza - My preferred pizza may be pepperoni, but I'd be willing to eat almost any other kind. This allows the group to make decisions that most easily meet the minimum needs of the members. I find this gentle, collective approach to decision-making a wonderful respite from how decisions often feel to me: stressful.

Even Low Stakes Decisions Can Feel Risky

In learning the sociocratic process, my partner and I did a three-week class with other new community members. One of our early tasks was to vote for the leader of the class. Despite the stakes being low (only three weeks and minor responsibilities), when it came time for voting for the leader, my emotions were in an uproar!

We were asked to write down who we were choosing and why before we announced it to the group. Thoughts rose up in a cacophony!  “What do you mean write down someone?? I don't even know some of these people yet! I just met them! I don't know their skills! What’s more, I don't know how THEY feel about the role! What if I pick someone and they don't want the role? I don't want to put that pressure on them! I can't choose someone out of thin air! Out of nothing. Without having an understanding of the whole group and process and responsibilities!”

I was so disquieted, I spoke up (out of turn) and expressed my concerns, “I have picked someone, but I don't know if they want this role and I think it’s important to know their desires first.”Another member of the community (who is experienced in the process) smiled gently. “I understand,” she said, “it will all make sense. Just pick a person right now. If you don't have a reason, you can say it’s a gut decision. Writing it down allows you not to change your mind when you hear others' reasons.”

UGH! That felt awful! I wanted to change based on others. I wanted to know the vibe of the group. I wanted to understand and know people's interests and skills. I hated putting the decision down on paper. Some part of me felt shame in advance – what if it was a “bad” choice? What if it put pressure on someone? What if it made me look foolish or ignorant (or worse, exposed my possibly inherent foolishness and ignorance)? Writing it down made it so permanent!

Internally, I spoke gently to myself, “Remember we agreed to not take this seriously? To use it to learn through play? Is it safe enough just to try in this learning environment?”

What the Process Made Possible

I begrudgingly picked a person, although writing it down was too much commitment! I decided holding it in my mind was “good enough for now”. Then, I listened as we went around the circle, one by one saying who we picked and why. (I noticed I didn't judge anyone else’s inherent value on their choices. I was much harder on myself than I was on anyone else.)

After everyone had named their choice and explained it, we got to do a second round, now based on what we had heard from everyone. We were to name the same or a new person, and the reasons why we kept the choice or changed it. Some folks changed; some folks stayed the same.

Finally, the facilitator nominated someone based on what they had heard, and we checked for objections. No objection means there is consent. Consent just means the decision is in alignment with the goals of the group. In other words, good enough for now and safe enough to try. If someone had objected, we would work through their reasons and compare them against the values of the group.

A final choice was selected based on who best met the criteria and everyone consented.

What came next opened up a deep learning about how I usually make decisions and the limitations of my habit patterns.

Sharing our Initial Gut Ideas Allows for “Uninformed” Wisdom

The trainer then explained that the first round of choice is crucial. It IS “uneducated” – intentionally uneducated about what others think and want. So that we can become educated about ourselves! It is wise, because it holds our gut knowing or tacit knowledge. Our gut choice is not uninformed as in careless, ignorant or detached from reality. There is no lack of intelligence or education in it. Our “uninformed” ideas are our deep, internal, inherent wisdom from our lived experience that might not even be conscious or put into words yet. It has not yet been shaped by anyone else.  It is information that is unique to our particular perspective and lived experience. Within this system, decisions are an opportunity to go deeper into ourselves. And this inner knowledge, if protected, received and shared, will enrich the group.

There is value in my “uninformed” opinion.

It’s amazing that we are trained to dismiss ourselves. We are trained to look outward to know. We are trained to go along.

What would your life be like

if you trusted that your uninformed gut take is priceless?

It had never occurred to me that there was ANY value in my uninformed ideas.  That there was anything to be learned from my “ignorance.” Who even am I without my explicitly gathered data? What is there to learn from uninformed me? “Years of lived experience and knowing”, I replied gently to the part of me questioning, “You have years of lived experience and knowing.”

I begin to consider there may be no right (or wrong) answer - there is only valuable information from and about me. To treat my first response as valuable does not mean treating it as infallible. It means allowing it to become part of the information available to the group. My “uninformed” perspective matters. As does everyone else's in my community.

Consider, if we were to make decisions just based on our own gut, we would not find collective alignment and we would be skewed toward our own biases. But if we just prioritize the group's collective leaning, we would most likely diminish our own perspective, which has its own wisdom, independent of the group. This process allows hidden and diverse information to surface and be integrated and that helps decision-making be more robust.

A Second Round of Decision-Making Allows for the Wisdom of the Collective

The second round of choice is also a necessity for a group. When everyone gets to speak their unadulterated perspective, it allows each person to take in the group’s wisdom without losing contact with their own. We do not simply replace our first response with another’s; we integrate what we have heard. In that integration, each of us has access to thinking, feeling and knowing more than we could have alone. That, then, gets re-shared, individually, to coalesce into a collective wisdom that is more than any one of us, but comes from all of us as individuals!

Our individual wisdom is additive when integrated in a group.

No type of knowing has to outrank another. Our individual wisdom is rich. Our integration of other's perspectives has value. Our collective wisdom is more than what we could come up with alone.

Where I Ended Up

Next time I have to make a decision, I will still have the parts that want to look good and gather data. I will still feel the old fear of choosing badly. But sociocracy has given me a reminder to turn towards myself with kindness. I can support myself in the shaky offering of myself in the world. I can remind myself that decision-making can be about learning rather than escaping judgement.

I now know to pay attention to how safe I feel when I am deciding something. I can use structures to slow down the decision-making process to make space for me to be heard. And, perhaps most importantly, I can treasure my initial response as sacred. My first take doesn’t have to be the best choice or the final choice. It is valuable information. It is an offering.

My first choice can be examined alongside other people’s perspectives and the group’s needs. I do not have to cling to it, nor do I have to dismiss it. I can let it enter the circle.

May my own learning serve my growth and yours.