Looking forward to ideas and learning from your experience
Our small organisation is exploring the extent to which sociocracy will help us avoid some common pitfalls we have experienced within our own organisation and experiences with others. As we think about the circle structure, we are asking ourselves HOW exactly, the circle structure helps to breakdown silos aka stovepiping. We are interested in the mechanisms of it. We see materials on structure and on communication but not really on communication within the structure aside from within circles and among formal linkages, and are happy to be guided on relevant material if we are wrong.
Silos and communication among circles
Circles look pretty and all, but basically can be reformated into a hierarchical structure to the uninformed eye. The difference is what happens within and among the circles. Whilst the structure makes it clear for decison-making within the domain of each circle, this could lead to silos among circles as much as any conventional “department” structure in which department heads meet regularly to discuss what is happening in their domain. So the quality of the linkages among circles seems to be the key for effective communication, with main difference compared with conventional structures seemingly found in the double linking which could serve to improve the quality of those linkages such that there two people in charge of passing information to and from each circle. BUT there is nothing that structurally guarantees effective communication between circles as far as we can see… it is all about how those linkages behave. Therefore, is there anything special in sociocracy about how to maintain decision-making domains and avoid silos?
Communication among circle members and members of other circles
The other issue is that there is not that much in the sociocracy materials about communication among members of different circles… .again, we are not talking about decision-making here, but collaboration within roles that may need one another but are not in the same circle. That is, when someone in sales needs to talk to someone in production in order to do something, how is that handled? Ideally the roles of Person A would include collaboration with Person B in a different circle, but that seems to be a bit rigid. So when ad-hoc communication between people in different circles is needed, are there best practices or things for which we should plan? At this point that we are assuming that there is no need to ONLY allow communication to do things within the leader/delegate circle linkages, and assume that those roles should be informed through regular circle updates that something is happening.
In my understanding, sociocracy facilitates a certain way for organizational structure, communication channels, workflow, feedback, consent decision-making, inclusivity and so on.
However, I guess “guarantee” is just a word we use to enjoy an imaginary comfort and ease. In reality, who could guarantee anything to anybody.
Of course, one of the meanings we could attach to the word “guarantee” is “good intentions”. It seems that intentions are not enough to have the results we are looking for, but we need something more, a system …
Now, is a system enough to “guarantee” something? It could help foster a “safe enough” environment, but how to “guarantee” something as long as we don’t know how people will use their choice.
Sociocracy has methods, but people’s collaboration in a sociocratic system is finally based on trust. If things are not working well, we all can propose some changes and we can decide by consent how to improve and progress. Fortunately, sociocracy is about people who work together making decisions together, not about control and command.
I guess I will come back with more personal reflections. I am also interested in other people’s reflections. Sociocray tends to integrate the diversity of dimensions and perspectives, so let’s see what other people have to say.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, for your request and for the opportunity to contribute by sharing my own reflections.
Thanks for your reflections. I agree with your perspectives on guarantees, and should not have chosen that word.
So to get the core of the questions:
(1) Since circles have their own clear aims and domains, how do organisations avoid silos? Are the specific tools that would help to balance circle autonomy with effective communication with affected parties? We don’t want to assume that sociocracy is inherently better that than any other structure. We get that the double linking between circles is probably better than relying on single manager to do that, but imagine there must be some tips and tricks for that the communication to flow well there.
and
(2) Does anyone have standards or practices that help communication to flow either through the circle lead/delegates or directly among circle members from different circles?
@teka-teki, please note that my comments are from my own perspective and that other people may have other opinions, so please let the door open to receive more feedback on the topic you proposed.
In my understanding, circles, aims and domains are not something we find by exploring the environment, but are something people define to organize themselves in order to do their work and finally have the results they are looking for. From this perspective, it depends on the people who design the organizational structure (of circles, aims and domains) to do it in such a way that domains do not overlap each other and that there are no gaps between them. Overall, sociocracy is a continuous process of designing, decision-making, working, gathering feedback, evaluating the results and optimizing to become more effective and efficient in bringing the results we are looking for.
Fortunately, in sociocracy we are not looking for “the perfect” solution at a certain moment. Nobody could know what is the perfect way to do something and when. Sociocracy decision-making is based on the principle of making informed decisions that are “good enough for now and safe enough to try”. That means that we also decide a term to measure / evaluate the results and adapt our strategy by improving our initial decision. This is the dynamic governance that allows people to go forward, learn from the results and improve the process in a continuous progress loop.
To answer your question: “How do organisations avoid silos?”, my answer is that it’s ok to start by doing the best people are able to do at a certain time, gather as much feedback as possible from all the circles activities, measure / evaluate the results, analyze if there are gaps or overlaps on different domains, clarify and refine everything on the way then do it again and make another circle of input / transformation / output. Each circle may gather feedback from as many as possible (including from outside the circle or even the organization) but make decisions by those few people who have deciding rights and authority in that respective circle / domain. Sociocracy still integrates empiricism in its methods and processes.
To answer your question: “How do organisations avoid silos?”, my answer is that it’s ok to start by doing the best people are able to do at a certain time, gather as much feedback as possible from all the circles activities, measure / evaluate the results, analyze if there are gaps or overlaps on different domains, clarify and refine everything on the way then do it again and make another circle of input / transformation / output. Each circle may gather feedback from as many as possible (including from outside the circle or even the organization) but make decisions by those few people who have deciding rights and authority in that respective circle / domain. Sociocracy still integrates empiricism in its methods and processes.
If possible, I am really interested to find more about the organization you are talking about and to learn more from your successes and challenges as well. If you agree, we could schedule an online meeting between the two of us, to discuss more. Please note that I am not yet a consultant, but just a certified sociocracy practitioner on my way to become a sociocracy certified facilitator. I am also looking for more experienced people to bring on this discussion table their own insights and suggestions. I feel stimulated and inspired by this virtual conversation as it fulfills my need for connection, meaning and cooperation.
Best wishes.
p.s.1
Perhaps you already know that domain overlaps or gaps issues are solved by “parenting”. The parent circle has the responsibility and authority to solve such a situation. The final station to park and solve domain authority distribution is in what we usually call the General Circle.
p.s.2
If possible, I am really interested to find more about the organization you are talking about and to learn more from your successes and challenges as well. If you agree, we could schedule an online meeting between the two of us, to discuss more. Please note that I am not yet a consultant, but just a certified sociocracy practitioner on my way to become a sociocracy certified facilitator. I am also looking for more experienced people to bring on this discussion table their own insights and suggestions. I feel stimulated and inspired by this virtual conversation as it fulfills my need for connection, meaning and cooperation.
Circle autonomy on its own domain is previously consented. This also implies respecting the organization’s overall policies, including the organization’s vision, mission and aims. However, no circle / domain is independent. In sociocracy, nested circles are double linked: two members of one circle are at the same time full members of the both parent (broader) / child (more specific) circle. Decisions are made by consent, i.e. a decision can only be made when no one has an objection. The two links have full membership and decision rights on both circles, so between circles there are no “power over” but “power with” relationships.