Is anyone familiar enough with sociocracy (also known as holocracy) to comment on whether it is in line with or at odds with AoH philosophy and principles? I have a client that would like to introduce this form of governance and decision-making. From what I can tell, it seems too controlled to truly allow emergence. It also seems to place too much emphasis on the individual voice and not enough on eliciting the voice of the whole - it achieves the "two heads are better than one" effect, but not the emergence of a higher, wiser level of life.
Are my instincts correct? Or is there more to this method that I'm not seeing? And even if my instincts are correct, might it still be a good choice for them under certain circumstances? For example, is it a good stepping stone from traditional top-down decision-making, preparing them for a more fluid, fertile form of decision-making when they're ready? Likewise, is it an appropriate decision-making structure for some types of decisions?
Hello Michelle,
I entirely share your observation and maybe I also lack some insights.
I have used holocracy twice with a some holocrocy freaks and certified facilitators while being a novice myself. Like every tool you can see the use and it can have a place in the process of change. For me, I saw some benefits as you described, the top being “forced” to listen, but it was too much control and listening skills can be obtained differently.
One major problem popped up when we wanted to implement the double loops of governance in parallel with capacity decision making loop. In most European countries NGO’s or privately held organisations legally have only ONE person responsible and liable. The second governance loop representatives therefore are not on equal foot with the capacity people or person. Do you understand what I mean? I hope this helps.
If you like to hear more, please contact me directly terWoort@AtW-Business.com
Best regards from Brussels,
Andreas
----------------
Dear Michelle,
I am far from being an expert on holocracy, however have used a method based on its principles quite successfully once in the European Commission. We used the integrated decision making method, to come to a group decision of a larger group, on a document only a smaller group had been drafting, in order to endorse it by the whole group or community concerned.
We had one person who was trained and who prepared us other hosts, so we could run the process together.
I must say, yes, it is rather structured and controlled, but in a transparent way, and it really did it's job in our case. In the end all voices were heard, the principles agreed, and the document, in a changed version and accepted by everyone, endorsed, ready for further processing.
In my view it totally depends what the purpose of your client is, where he wants to see this applied and for what.
It could be that a wise combination of the too might be the key. For the governance issues of a larger group for instance, or when the outcomes of a hosted participatory gathering are to be acted upon, etc. As the only way of governing all of your meetings it might indeed not serve well, as the representation functions seem a bit fixed. So I would just sense into what is needed, and propose a wise combination that is purpose driven, probably case by case, to insure participation through resonance, as well as creating space for emergence. In that way I would see a way to combine the two.
Curious to hear more from the experts in this community!
Ursula Hillbrand
-----------------
Hello again, Michelle,
Coming back to your question about how Sociocracy/Holacracy fits with AoH principles...
First off, there is a distinction to be drawn between Sociocracy and Holacracy - I have more understanding of the latter than the former, and I know there are many disagreements on the finer aspects, but as I understand it, sociocracy is a process that is designed to serve 'community' and it's all about the people in the group and how they work/live/operate together. Holacracy is about the organisation, and harnesses similar processes to sociocracy, but with the focus on how the people - as sensory organs inhabiting/energizing specific roles - provide the information and action needed to enable the organisation to fulfill its purpose in the world. There is basic assumption that an organisation is (or can be) an entity in its own right, with a soul and a purpose distinct from the people in it. So it's not about the people, it's about the organisation, as an entity, that has a mission in society that cannot be fulfilled by any one person. So organisational purpose is at the centre.
Which certainly accords with the AoH principle of purpose being the invisible leader.
Holacracy quite rigorously follows a set of practices which might feel a bit constraining to some people. But they are practices for the organisation, not the people! And the people don't have to follow those practices all the time - only during the different types of meeting, which make clear distinctions between strategy (where the organisation is going in pursuit of its purpose), governance (how we work together, through our roles, in pursuit of the organisation's purpose), operations (what we are actually going to do today, this week, next week, etc.) - and we're not talking about the tyranny of consensus here - there's a great deal of scope for individual action and accountability: more than in most traditional organisations.
I have never seen any incompatibility between AoH and holacracy - but the one need not necessarily lead to the other in either direction. That said, you might know that I work in the European Commission, which is a huge, rambling organisation which clearly has a soul and a purpose, but has no processes whereby the people can unfailingly feed into that purpose, and so the monster has lost its way and lost its connection to its soul and its purpose. It's like a body inhabited by a multitude of hungry spirits, pulling it this way and that, so it can do one thing and its opposite simultaneously 30 times before breakfast. Which equates with quite some stuckness. We have been introducing AoH practices into this system quite successfully since 2008, and now have a growing community of practitioners and loads of different processes going on. All seemingly very promising. But it's not enough - far and away not enough - to bring coherence into the body mind and spirit of this beast. Holacracy is the only 'operating system' that I am aware of that has the potential do do that, because of the way its disciplined processes intermesh with its structural architecture to bring coherence to the whole from all the parts at once, because there is clarity - just as there is in the human body - of what each part and system is for, and the processes allow continual adjustments and corrections to occur naturally throughout the body of the organisation without everything having to be 'led by the head'. There is a hierarchy, but one of scope, not dominance, so each functional circle in the organisation is self-governing, but not self-directing.
There is a lot more I could say. I cannot claim to have had much experience of applying practices of Holacracy in the Commission (what little I have managed to try has been most effective, but unless it can grow and expand, it will die) - it's hard to introduce such an integral, joined up set of practices into such a colossal monster, especially one that is so firmly in the grips of a dysfunctional hierarchy of dominance - but I sense with great clarity, in the deeper recesses of my being, that the disciplined processes and practices of Holacracy could revolutionise our effectiveness in serving the cause we love, if only we could get over our immature egos and collective unconsciousness enough to try it. Which I'm pretty sure we won't!
Don't hesitate to contact me, Michelle, if you want a more in-depth conversation about this all.
helen