Creating a thriving intentional community requires careful consideration of how decisions are made and who participates. This is the essence of governance. It’s not enough to have good intentions. A strong, fair, and lasting community is built on clear, agreed-upon processes that account for human nature’s complexities. Instead of starting from scratch, learning from the successes and challenges of other communities can significantly increase your chances of long-term stability and harmony. What steps will your founding group take first to define your governance?
Understanding Governance Processes
The way you make decisions can vary greatly depending on their importance. Crucial, long-lasting decisions often benefit from formal governance procedures, while daily, less impactful choices might be handled through simple conversations and mutual understanding. Being transparent about these distinctions from the outset is vital.
While many intentional communities lean towards egalitarian governance, where everyone has an equal say, there can be valid reasons for more centralized decision-making, especially in the initial stages. For example, individuals who have invested significant personal credit or wealth might need to feel their interests are protected, gradually sharing power as trust and collective buy-in grow.
However, the core appeal of most intentional communities lies in exploring alternatives to traditional autocratic leadership or the “winner-take-all” outcomes of simple democratic votes. If there’s no shared decision-making or mutual benefit from collective efforts, founders will struggle to attract members willing to fully commit.
Common Governance Models
Here are some established governance models, each with its own approach to decision-making:
- Sociocracy (Dynamic Governance): This model uses multiple levels of interconnected leadership committees. It’s designed to ensure effective decision-making and flow of information throughout the organization.
- Consensus: Requires full agreement from all participants on a decision, often involving extensive discussion and negotiation.
- Modified consensus: A variation of consensus that includes backup decision-making styles (e.g., voting) for situations where a unanimous agreement isn’t reached within a set timeframe.
- Holacracy: A system of self-management where authority and decision-making are distributed among self-organizing teams and roles, guided by clear rules.
- Standard governing board: Decisions are made by a vote among elected or appointed board members.
- Democratic vote: Decisions are based on the majority opinion, either of all contributing residents or all share-owning residents.
- Autocracy: A single leader or landowner holds final decision-making power for important matters.
- Anarchy: Characterized by the absence of official authority and a focus on self-management without direct supervision.
- Robert’s Rules of Order: A widely used set of parliamentary procedures for conducting meetings and making decisions in a fair and orderly manner.
- Martha’s Rules of Order: A simplified version of Robert’s Rules, often preferred for less formal groups.
- Do-ocracy: Decisions are made by whoever takes the initiative to do the work. The person doing the task has the authority over how it’s done.
- Undecided or informal: Different decision processes are used for different types of decisions, often without a formally declared overall system.
While there’s no single “most successful” governance model for intentional communities, Geoph Kozeny, who lived in and studied numerous communities, famously concluded that the best approach is “Whatever the members wholeheartedly believe in” (Fellowship for Intentional Communities, 2014, p. 3). That said, sociocracy has gained significant popularity, especially in larger communities, due to its effectiveness in distributing decision-making into smaller, manageable groups. Your founding group might start with simple meetings, but considering sociocracy’s principles early on could benefit your community in the long run.
Reference: Fellowship for Intentional Communities. (2014). In community, intentionally. In Best of Communities: I. Intentional Community Overview and Starting a Community. Foundation for Intentional Community
Key Areas for Discussion and Agreement
Decision Makers
Start by identifying everyone who is committed to or interested in being part of the initial decision-making processes. This clarity helps establish a core group for laying foundational agreements.
Number of Members in Your Founders’ Group
Ownership of Physical Property
Clearly defining who owns the buildings and/or land is a fundamental aspect of your community’s structure. This can be a complex issue, and the initial arrangement might evolve over time.
- How will initial team members and newcomers buy in or sell shares to exit? This is crucial for long-term financial stability and fairness.
- Current or preliminary ownership structure: (e.g., rent, rent-to-own, purchase)
- If jointly owned, how will ownership be structured? (e.g., co-op, land trust, LLC)
Avoiding autocracy: Be mindful of the potential for a landlord/tenant dynamic to undermine the community’s intentional principles. A true intentional community goes beyond a simple rental agreement. An IC fosters shared responsibility and benefit.
Leadership Meetings
Even before you share housing, establishing a basic framework for task assignment and decision-making is essential. While some groups prefer an organic, “friends” approach, consider how this will impact newcomers. Will there be space for new voices, or will existing personalities dominate?
- Time-tested group processes: These focus on consensus-based group decision-making.
- The accountability meeting: A structured meeting format designed to help members take responsibility for their impact on the group, especially in situations with power imbalances.
- Consultants: Experts in sociocracy and other consensus-based decision-making strategies can significantly accelerate your group’s learning curve and help implement effective systems.
- Meeting tips: Resources like Brene Brown’s “Dare to Lead” offer valuable insights into productive and empathetic group interactions.
Recording Decisions
- It’s crucial to document your agreements to ensure clarity and accountability.
- Administrative tasks: Define when and by whom administrative tasks get done. What happens if they’re not completed? If tasks are outsourced, who covers the cost?
- Agreement discussion and recording: Establish a clear process for discussing, recording, and making group agreements accessible to all members.
Pre-formatted template for record of agreements
Weekly Planning Meeting
A regular weekly planning meeting is indispensable if your group:
- Functions as an income-producing work team
- Resides in closely shared housing
- Includes members not consistently involved in leadership meetings who need updates
During these meetings, consider assigning a role (perhaps not the facilitator) to gently guide discussions back to the agenda when tangents arise. Many consensus-based meetings conclude with a “check-out” round, where each person shares a brief comment, allowing themes to emerge for future discussions. If time runs short, a one-word check-out can suffice.
Scheduling software can help you establish a regular time and place for the planning meetings.
Group-wide Communication Norms
Consistent communication is the bedrock of successful intentional community governance. Decisions must be communicated to be implemented, and rules must be known and accessible to be followed. Decide on the following:
- Platform for asynchronous communication (non-real-time): Choose a platform the group will use consistently for notices, updates, and ongoing discussions (e.g., email, Telegram, Discord, Google Chat, WhatsApp, Facebook groups, Loomio, Communecter.org, Hylo, Discourse, BuddyBoss, Mighty Networks, PeerBoard, Panion, Tru Movements, HumHub).
- Platform for real-time scheduled communication (video/audio calls): Select a platform for regular meetings and live discussions when not in-person (e.g., Discord, Zoom, Google Meet, Jitsi (free & open source), free Vibecafe.xyz).
- Mandated check-ins: Establish the frequency and timing for written updates (e.g., “check once per week for notices by Monday 9 a.m. ET; members are expected to read them by Tuesday 9 a.m. ET”).
Governance Participation Criteria
Clearly define what criteria are necessary for participation in decision-making at various levels within your community.
- Participation requirements for being part of a governance group: What attributes or contributions (e.g., time committed, specific skills, financial buy-in like owning shares) are required before someone can join the leadership or decision-making team?
- Are there term limits for governance roles?
- Who will keep records of decisions, and where will they be accessible to all members?
- Do all members need to participate in meetings, and if so, how often?
- If a member misses a mandatory meeting with a valid reason, how and when can they still weigh in on decisions?
- Can a member pass on speaking during a round, or is speaking mandatory?
- What are the specific governance roles within the group (e.g., facilitator, note-taker, task manager)?
- How and when will governance roles be re-decided or rotated in the future?
Counteracting Negative Human Tendencies
Without clear written agreements and contracts, communities are more vulnerable to negative human tendencies. A lack of defined guidelines for decision-making can lead to power-plays and even bullying, undermining intentions for an egalitarian structure.
Without clear agreements, your community is at greater risk of:
- Decisions being based purely on popularity contests, rather than the long-term best interests of the group
- Decisions becoming subject to “might makes right,” where an owner with ultimate veto power goes unchallenged
- Individuals engaging in “kickbacks” or forming personal alliances that undermine the group’s collective good for their self-interest
- “Dark triad” personalities (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) gradually accruing power unnoticed until they dominate the community
By proactively discussing and agreeing upon these governance aspects, your intentional community can build a resilient foundation for shared living and collective flourishing.
Recognize power-plays and bullying
Governance Case Studies
Studying effective and ineffective governance in other intentional communities can provide valuable lessons and help your group avoid common pitfalls. For example, understanding leadership dysfunction can highlight the importance of clear processes and conflict resolution mechanisms.
Case study: Leadership dysfunction in an ecovillage: A leader can have both brilliance and tragic flaws.
Case studies in consensus: This article by a seasoned communitarian discusses how to prevent decision-blocking.