Sociocracy and Holacracy. A very different same

SOCIOCRACY and HOLACRACY
A very different same
Emanuele Quintarelli
Entrepreneur and Organizational Emergineer at Cocoon Projects – Associate Partner at Peoplerise
GLOBAL SOCIOCRACY CONFERENCE – May 2020

Our way of doing business is broken
• Dying faster and faster. 75% of the S&P500 disappeared by 2025 (Innosight)
• Constantly diminishing returns. ROA fell to ¼ of what it was in 1965 (Deloitte)
• Vanished job safety. Average net new job creation rate negative for 20 years (Kauffman)
• Exploding organizational bureaucracy. Management is a $8.4T toll (McKinsey)
• Dramatic levels of employee motivation. 85% of employees are not engaged (Gallup)

Two challengers?
• Evolutionary purpose
• Intentional power distribution
• Everything is allowed until it is not
• Only as much structure as needed
• Effectiveness and speed
• Agility, experimentation, dynamic steering
• Circle-based structure and double linking
• Radical transparency
• No hierarchy of individuals
• Consent-based decisions
LOTS IN COMMON
1851 - A system of governance
for harmonious social
environments and productive
organizations
SOCIOCRACY
2006 - A new management
system for a rapidly changing
world
HOLACRACY

1. How do their practices differ?
2. What view of men and organizations are they bringing forth?
3. What kind of change processes are they best aligned with?
4. Are there bridges to be built between them?
5. What can we learn about the evolutionary journey organizations have ahead?
Are Sociocracy and Holacracy pretty the same?
WHAT I MEANT TO EXPLORE
IN 10 DIFFERENCES

DIFF 1 – What do they believe in?
Foundations in human living
systems, agency, search for
connection, belonging and purpose.
Mindset rooted in algorithms,
simple / scalable rules, IC&T and
GTD to cut off deviance.
Effectiveness, equivalence,
transparency, inclusion, feedback
respect, conscious capitalism, NVC.
Equivalence supports effectiveness
Human beings and their dysfunctional
behaviors as a drawback to
organizational speed and efficiency.
Efficiency by neutralizing humanity
SOCIOCRACY HOLACRACY
ROOTSBELIEFS

DIFF 2 – How do they want to contribute?
Individuals naturally look for
accountability, self-direction, self-
control, self-motivation (Theory Y).
In order to reach performance, the
organization must “help” people to
adhere to Theory Y (Theory X?)
It supports deep relationships
towards a more integrated life,
connected society and communities
with more sense of belonging.
It protects the organization from
political turfs, fiefdoms, hidden
agendas and the willingness to go
around the rules.
WHATHOW

DIFF 3 – The meaning of governance
A governance system for teams to
flourish and contribute towards the
organization mission.
A governance system of the
organization to achieve its
purpose through the people.
Governance means collaborative
decision making to make policy
(roles, selections, workflows,
guidelines).
Governance means distributing
authority to let individuals know
who can do what within what limits.
WHATHOW

DIFF 4 – Operations vs Governance
Operations and policy making
along a continuum.
Tactical activities clearly
separated from governance.
Consent for policies but often used
also in operational decisions.
Format for operational meetings.
IDM only for power distribution.
Daily activities happen between
governance meetings.
GTD for tactical activities.
WHATHOW

DIFF 5 – Who is responsible for action?
Circle as a group of people who
collaborate and decide together how
work is done.
Circle as a cell of the organization
with accountabilities and domains
independent of who is filling them.
The circle has collective
responsibility for action based on
how domain, roles and policies have
been defined.
Circles have no responsibilities for
action. Individuals do by stepping
outside of their personal identity,
feeling and acting on tensions.
WHATHOW

DIFF 6 – Proposal making and agenda building
Proposals made collaboratively by
the circle through picture forming
and proposal shaping.
In governance meetings, proposals
are originated by the member that
feels the tension.
Agenda usually built before-hand
by the facilitator and leader, based
on the backlog / other needs and
approved by consent.
Agenda created during, not before
governance meetings, by the
facilitator, collecting tensions from
participants.
PROPSAGENDAS

DIFF 7 – The role of the leader
The leader pays attention to
operations and circle members.
The lead link has responsibility for
priorities, strategies, metrics and
allocation of resources in the circle.
More of a coordination responsibility
for the leader, shared values and
empathic facilitation helps the team
to work horizontally.
The lead link inherits purpose,
accountabilities and domain of the
circle top-down.
WHATHOW

DIFF 8 – Work allocation
Operational activities happen
according to policies under the
coordination of the leader.
Individuals have total autonomy for
the accountabilities assigned to
them.
The leader is assigned or elected
and can take also the facilitator role.
Any other role is selected by circle
members. Selections by consent in
the receiving circle.
As a default the lead link is
assigned from the higher circle.
He/she then assigns people to fill
operational circle roles.
WHATHOW

DIFF 9 – Validation of objections
Objections due to proposals
beyond the range of tolerance.
The goal is deciding together.
Objections express a negative
impact of the proposal on circle’s
ability to move forward.
Every objection is valid. Circle
members share responsibility to
decide how to integrate them.
The facilitator tests objections
through a checklist. The objector
makes an amended proposal that
the proposer should accept.
WHATHOW

DIFF 10 – Self Expression and Ownership
Every voice is heard & integrated.
Values create safe space for self-
expression & satisfaction of needs.
Attention to the individual need for
self-expression is missing in
Holacracy.
Mission Circle as a bridge to all
stakeholders and other
organizations. Sociocracy very well
complements inclusive and self-
ownership.
The Anchor Circle accountable for
the purpose but no mechanisms to
include perspectives from other
stakeholders or organizations.
EXPR.OWNERSIP

In a nutshell, same same? Nope, a very different same!
MODULAR vs MONOLITHIC
HUMANE vs ALGORITHMIC
2
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PRACTICES
1
3

Is there something to learn? YES
1. A crispier distinction among governance and operational activities
2. Finding / building software solutions better able to facilitate sociocratic meetings
and a transparent access to policy
3. More attention regarding how to bring Sociocracy within organizations
4. Applications and language appealing to the for-profit world
5. Clarifying the heritage from (lean, cybernetics, living organizations) and
connection with (agile, steward ownership, non-violent communication) other
movements

Unique needs and context more than any single framework
NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL
• No governance model is best
• An informed and intentional reflection
more than any right framework
• Purpose, organizational culture and
strategic goals are the context
• Taking responsibility for an ongoing,
holistic, iterative, learning journey
• Experimenting with evolutionary
seeds that address specific needs.
Trying, failing, trying again..https://bit.ly/3d5w3c6
THE HUMAN
ORGANIZATION
MAP

Emanuele Quintarelli
Entrepreneur and Organizational Emergineer at Cocoon Projects – Associate Partner at Peoplerise
Email: emanuele.quintarelli@gmail.com
Website: http://www.socialenteprise.it
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emanuelequintarelli/
Q&AThanks to Ted Rau and Andrea Farè for having discussions that improved this presentation

Sociocracy and Holacracy. A very different same

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Sociocracy and Holacracy. A very different same

Similaire à Sociocracy and Holacracy. A very different same (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Sociocracy and Holacracy. A very different same