I think we fit quite nicely in what is described in chapter “6.6 Sociocracy in tiny groups”. But I’m looking for some more inspiration to unblock us.
We are a small IT services company and I’m the founder. We went through a kind of rough patch some years ago. This lead to our team becoming much smaller (12 > 6). Another side effect of this period is that we ended up with everybody doing everything, which is no longer maintainable. And we had adopted quite some sociocratic org principles (mostly based on S3) that washed away over time.
Things are going great again since last year. However, today we have quite some complexity in our services. We’re probably doing too much for the size of the current team, especially from a cognitive point of view. We decided we needed renewed clarity, more separation of duties (not everybody doing everything) and a foundation we could support our growth with.
We started determining domains and aims again. Based on that we came up with a general circle, with some roles and 3 sub-circles. To our minds this seems to be the only ways to create the cognitive separation and give people the mental space to focus (and grow) again.
However, having such so ‘many’ circles scares us: governance overhead, people still being part of too many ‘contexts’. In addition, most people are not interested anymore in participating at the GC level anymore. We think this is due to the fact that people doing everything tired us. They prefer to focus on an area, which is ok for me.We already decided to have single linking for now to keep things more simple.
I’m looking for challenging questions, insights in how other small teams with similar challenges have tackled this and any other advice you may have. What about people being in multiple circles? Governance overhead?