Sociocracy and strategy (2min)
(This post is taken from our monthly advanced newsletter. You can subscribe here.)
Shared direction for decentralized organizations
Sociocracy is really good at decentralizing decisions so that all circles make decisions about something, and all decisions are made somewhere. Yet, with this decentralization also comes a challenge - what if we all want/need to move in the same direction?
Let’s compare a sociocratic organization with the human body. In our bodies, there are a lot of interdependent systems - like our cardiovascular or digestive systems. They work somewhat independently according to their unique rules and needs. And that works really well, and we don’t have to think about breathing and digestion because those systems just do their thing.
But there are interdependencies. For example, we might have to breathe faster if our muscles work harder. So all of a sudden, this decentralized approach gets stress-tested. We have to act as one.
For example, if a human body has to run away, this balance temporarily changes. In a fight or flight situation (or when we’re excited by an opportunity), the muscular system might work harder than usual, and all other systems follow suit to allow for this opportunity. That might mean that digestion slows down for a while, just long enough to respond.
In the same way, an organization needs to be able to respond. If there’s a threat or a big opportunity, we want all the relevant parts of the organization to stretch a little to make a certain outcome possible. And that means “everyone just does their thing” might not be enough. We need to balance decentralization and centralization. And that’s quite a feat!
Just like hormones rush through the body to make one outcome (“run!”) our #1 priority for a while, a project or direction can become our priority for a certain time period. Or looming bankruptcy. Or disruptive technology. A change in the political landscape. That’s when a centralized strategy can align all the parts so we can focus on that.
In decentralized organizations, that means that the individual circles need to buy into a strategy so it works out. That requires making a plan together , ideally in a highly participatory way so all the different parts can align behind the strategy and carry it out with their unique contribution.
In that sense, circles are independent but also depend on each other: inter dependent. They are doing their own thing, but they also work together to create something bigger than themselves.
In sociocracy, how do we hold centralization? It’s typically o the General Circle, or Mission Circle. Or maybe in all-member conversations.
Where in your organization are there conversations about the organizational strategy when it’s necessary?