Learn how decision making in intentional communities works so you can choose the right model for your group and choose the group with the model you want to use.
When people ask me what the “best” decision-making process is for intentional communities, I always think of Geoph Kozeny, a legend in the communities movement. I never had the chance to meet him, but his words continue to inspire me and many others:
“The best decision making process is the one that the members trust.”
That simple sentence says a lot. There’s no single perfect system that works for every community in every situation. What really matters is that the group believes in the process and follows it with integrity.
From my own experience, trust is built when certain ingredients are in place: good listening, active participation, clear delegation, responsible follow-through, and some way of documenting decisions so they don’t get lost. Just as important is a willingness to learn and adapt. The way a new community decides things often looks very different from how a mature, established community makes decisions years later.
For example, in my own community of just eight households, we sometimes make decisions simply by talking around the fire in the evening. With a group that small, it’s possible to be casual. But as numbers grow, structure becomes less of a burden and more of a kindness—it helps make sure everyone’s voice is heard without dragging things out endlessly.
Cultural background also plays a big role. In my community, we have members who grew up in Eastern Europe, where enforced socialist systems left them wary of too much structure. For them, rigid processes can feel oppressive. At the same time, other members crave clear rules and defined roles so they feel secure. Holding these differences together isn’t always easy, but naming them openly helps us adjust our approach and avoid unnecessary conflict.
The truth is, every community will need to find its own way. And every person considering joining or starting a community should reflect on their own comfort level and communication style. Self-awareness—individually and collectively—is the foundation for choosing a decision-making process that works, and for having the flexibility to adjust as the community grows and changes.
Common models for decision making in intentional communities
There are many ways communities can make decisions. Below are some of the most common models I’ve seen used, along with their strengths and challenges.
Majority vote
Majority vote is perhaps the most familiar to us, since most of us live in democracies that use it every day. In some cases, it’s the only legally recognized way for communities to function—such as nonprofits, cooperatives, and homeowner associations.
Many intentional communities use voting as a fallback when other methods fail, or reserve it for certain types of decisions (like financial or legal matters) where speed and clarity are important. Variations include supermajority voting (requiring 2/3 or 3/4 approval) and anonymous voting to reduce peer pressure.
Some communities also combine voting with consensus—using consensus for everyday matters but relying on majority vote when decisions become too complex or contentious.
Consensus
Consensus is the original model of intentional communities, developed and refined in many of the “hippie-era” communes of the 1960s and 70s.
Critics often say consensus takes too long—“going round and round in a circle until everyone agrees.” But experienced practitioners argue that this is consensus poorly practiced. Well-facilitated consensus relies on delegation to smaller circles or committees and uses clear steps to move proposals forward.
Most communities today adopt a modified version of consensus, such as “consensus minus one” (where a single holdout cannot block the whole group). Consensus prioritizes the inclusion of all voices and works best in communities that value participation above speed.
Sociocracy
Sociocracy can be thought of as a younger cousin of consensus, and it’s quickly becoming one of the most popular models among intentional communities—especially larger or more complex groups.
Sociocracy is not only a decision-making method but a dynamic governance system. Its decision-making is based on consent rather than consensus. The test is not “does everyone agree?” but “are there any reasoned objections?” A proposal only moves forward if it’s considered “good enough for now, safe enough to try”—and always with a plan for review.
Different schools of practice exist. For example:
- Diana Leafe Christian encourages communities to adopt sociocracy in its entirety to get the full benefits.
- Others, like the S3 (Sociocracy 3.0) movement, treat sociocracy as a pattern language, where groups can pick and apply patterns as needed.
- Sociocracy for All (SoFA) is a leading organization offering resources and training to help communities implement the model.
Sociocracy offers structure, adaptability, and efficiency—while still honoring community values of inclusion and transparency.
Hybrid decision-making models
Hybrid models cover a wide range of practices that communities experiment with to build shared understanding, trust, and deeper cooperation. Intentional communities often invent new systems or draw from diverse cultural traditions—especially indigenous and nature-based practices.
This is part of the magic of community living: groups get creative. They may use Ways of Council, Circling, heart circles, authentic relating, meditation, tarot readings, or talking sticks—sometimes in combination with more formal governance systems.
(For example, I once lived in a community that would quietly meditate together for 30 minutes before starting every meeting, which did seem to have a beneficial effect on the quality of our decision-making during the meeting.)
Typically, blended models feature inner circles for decision-making among member-owners, and outer circles for delegation or less critical decisions. The structure is flexible, allowing communities to balance efficiency with connection.
Do-ocracy
“Do-ocracy” may sound playful, but many intentional communities use it quite seriously. This approach can also be described as voluntaryism—members are empowered to take initiative on what they see needs doing, as long as it doesn’t harm others and is in service of the whole.
Do-ocracy thrives in groups with a high degree of trust and strong alignment of values. Members are expected to seek input from others, but ultimately, action is valued over lengthy debate. The main drawback is that resentment can arise if people feel their voices weren’t considered before someone acted. Still, when paired with good communication, do-ocracy encourages creativity, responsibility, and momentum.
Benevolent dictatorship
“Benevolent dictatorship” is a phrase you may hear in communities—sometimes half in jest, sometimes quite seriously. It describes a structure where there is a strong leader or founder who holds final decision-making power or veto authority.
It’s important to remember that all communities have power dynamics, whether acknowledged or not. In fact, it can be more worrisome when a group claims to be fully egalitarian, but in practice, one person or a small group quietly holds most of the power. In these cases, transparency is essential.
While most of us instinctively run away from anything labeled “dictatorship,” I’ve seen communities function for decades with this model—or gradually transition over time into a more distributed system. When leadership is trusted, accountable, and clearly defined, a benevolent dictatorship can provide stability, especially in a community’s early years.
A note on hierarchy and governance systems
Many people are drawn to intentional communities precisely because they want to move away from hierarchy. Some groups, like those in the Federation of Egalitarian Communities (FEC), pride themselves on creating structures that are as flat and equal as possible. These efforts are noble and inspiring.
At the same time, hierarchy does not always have to be a negative word. It can be seen as one tool among many for organizing human cooperation. For example:
- In an emergency, hierarchy can allow a group to respond quickly and efficiently.
- In more peaceful times, the same group might return to slower, more inclusive consensus or sociocracy.
Think of governance as a toolbox. Drawing from the work of Ken Wilber’s integral theory and Spiral Dynamics, later applied by Frederic Laloux in Reinventing Organizations, the healthiest communities are those that can be adaptable and fluid—choosing the right decision-making method for the situation at hand.
Have a new group that’s getting started?
Trying to decide on a decision making model for you intentional community is tough… but there are some books to help you get started. Ideally everyone in your group can read these books so you all can learn together, instead of one person being the “expert” who teaches everyone else.
The book “Who Decides Who Decides?” is an excellent starting point. Written by Ted Rau of Sociocracy for All.
Another general overview of good facilitation and a diversity of decision making practices is “Together We Decide:
An Essential Guide for Making Good Group Decisions” by Craig Freshley.
Closing thoughts on decision making in intentional communities
At the end of the day, there is no one “best” way to make decisions in community. The best process is the one your members trust—and the one you are willing to revisit and refine over time.
Whether your group leans toward consensus, sociocracy, do-ocracy, or something entirely your own, what matters most is that your process matches your culture, your size, and your values. And perhaps most importantly, that it remains transparent, adaptable, and rooted in trust.
Quick FAQ
What is the best decision-making process for intentional communities?
There’s no single best system. The most effective process is the one members trust and can sustain—whether consensus, sociocracy, majority vote, or a hybrid.
How does consensus differ from sociocracy?
Consensus seeks proposals everyone can accept, while sociocracy uses consent—meaning no reasoned objections. Sociocracy also builds in circles, domains, and review cycles for efficiency.
Do intentional communities use voting?
Yes. Many communities use majority or supermajority voting for certain decisions, especially legal or financial matters, while relying on more collaborative methods for daily governance.
Can intentional communities change their decision-making system?
Absolutely. Most communities adapt their processes over time. What works for a new group of ten may not work for a mature community of one hundred. Flexibility is key.
Like what you’re reading? My book on intentional communities is now available for pre-order. It’s full of practical guidance, stories, and tools to help you thrive in community. Get your copy here.
What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts on group decision making strategies that work, or haven’t worked. Let’s keep growing our shared knowledge. Drop a comment below.
0 Comments