Yes. We highly recommend double-linking on general circle level (between department circles and the general circle). Yet, on sub-circle level or below, single links can be enough. Double linking is also useful to create redundancy.
Remember that double-linking is a very effective strategy to make sure information flows and power is shared between circles. Yet the same needs can, under some conditions, bet met with a different strategy, for example, liaisons, delegates on-call etc.
For more information, check out our handbook Many Voices One Song section 2.4
A different perspective: âdouble linkingâ (âcircularâ or âbi-directionalâ feedback roles) are a foundational element/principle of the SCM. Arguably the one truly unique contribution not addressed by other governance systems (though Ackoffâs âcircular organizationsâ hint at something similar). If circular feedback via separate roles with power of consent is absent, a foundational element is missing and the whole system is crippled. Double-linking is a foundational design element because without it, effective circular feedback will rarely happen. I have heard all the usual âreasonsâ and excuses and justifications for not implementing circular feedback, most of which resemble magical thinking that it will âjust happenâ because we have good intentions.
To me, the importance of double links is very high - I agree with John. To me, if double links are not used reliably then whatâs being practiced isnât really sociocracy, but something else.
However they are not generally necessary in helping circles.
I have seen interesting creative instances where non-circle groups were created to generate feedback for the organization which didnât include conventional links. Also occasionally in very small organizations, double links feel a bit redundant - however in cases like that thereâs perhaps a question of whether a circle is really necessaryâŚ