Non-hierarchical - what it means and what it doesn't
The "non" just means "without," and "hierarchical" from Greek hierarkhia ("rule of a high priest") refers to a hierarchy - a system where things are arranged in levels from highest to lowest. So non-hierarchical just describes a system, structure, or organisation that is not ranked by levels of authority, power, or status.
There is no automatic system of organising associated. There are many ways in which an organisations can work non-hierarchically.
At Strange Field it means:
No one's role is more valuable than anyone else's. A technician's work matters as much as a director's. Different roles require different skills and responsibilities. While we are all equal in status, our functions and contributions are distinct and specialised.
Decisions are made by the people closest to them - not escalated up a chain of command.
"Everyone has a right to make every decision." - No. That refers to consensus decision making.
Related terms you might encounter:
Direct democracy - everyone votes on everything
Flat democracy - informal term for leaderless group decision-making
The consensus model is often conflated with non-hierarchical structures, which is probably why it can be confusing. Many non-hierarchical groups do use consensus, but they're not the same thing.
Reality: We don’t default to "management by committee." We value autonomy. People are empowered to make decisions within their area of expertise without seeking permission from a "boss."
"Everyone needs to be part of every decision." - No. We moved away from flat democracy as we found it created tensions and risk. It can also be slow, exhausting, and actually disempowering. Strange Field distributes power so the right people make the right decisions.
"There are no leaders." - No. You can have leaders in a non-hierarchical structure.
Examples are:
Leaders who facilitate or coordinate rather than rank above others
People with specific expertise or roles who lead in their domain
Leadership that rotates or is situational
The key is that the leader isn't above others in status - they just have a function. Leadership as a role vs leadership as a rank. At Strange Field every circle has a lead. Leading a circle means taking responsibility for a process - not having power over people.
Leaderless structures can work in very specific contexts, but they often struggle with accountability and decision-making at scale.
Reality: We still have leaders. Leadership here is based on expertise and initiative rather than a permanent title or a spot at the top of a ladder.
The consensus model is often conflated with non-hierarchical structures, which is why it can be confusing. To protect both our operational agility and our deepest shared values, Strange Field uses a unique blend of both Sociocracy and Consensus.
[ THE GOVERN CIRCLE ] (Foundational Policy & Direction) | [ OPERATIONAL CIRCLES ] (Day-to-Day Execution) |
Method: Seeds for Change Consensus | Method: SoFA Consent |
"Does everyone actively support this, or can you at least live with it?" | "Is there any reasoned reason this proposal will cause harm?" |
Goal: Unanimity & Synergy | Goal: Iterative Momentum |
1. Foundational Decisions: Seeds for Change Consensus
Our Govern Circle sets the overarching rules, policies, and big-picture direction for Strange Field. Because these decisions shape the very foundation of our community, this circle operates via Consensus.
The Core Question: "Does everyone actively support this, or can you at least live with it?"
The Goal: Unanimity & Synergy. We actively weave together everyone’s values and preferences. One person can pause a proposal if it violates our core ethics, ensuring a minority is never overridden or left behind.
The Process: These decisions are never made in isolation. They require a live presentation to the all-team meeting, a 14-day digital feedback window, and a return to the team if new objections emerge.
2. Operational Decisions: Sociocracy For All (SoFA) Consent
All of our Sub-Circles (like project teams, communications, or event delivery) handle the day-to-day work. To ensure we don't get bogged down in endless debate, they operate via SoFA Consent.
The Core Question: "Is there any reasoned reason this proposal will cause harm or block our aims?"
The Goal: Iterative Momentum. A decision moves forward if nobody has a paramount, structural objection. You don’t have to personally love a decision to consent to it; you just need to feel that it is "good enough for now, safe enough to try."
Why We Blend Them
This approach is designed so that everyone's voice is heard where it matters most, day-to-day decisions can move forward without lengthy approval processes, and our shared values remain deeply protected.
What this model doesn't provide is the right to be involved in an operational decision simply because you want to be. Involvement is determined by relevance, role, and domain - not seniority or personal preference.
To learn more about our everyday operational tools, visit Sociocracy For All.
To learn more about our foundational agreement tools, visit Seeds for Change.