I’ve been circling (!) into governance ideas (Holacracy, Sociocracy and Sociocracy 3.0) and Permaculture, recently. My takes on these are:
- Holacracy is well structured but quite complicated to implement
- Sociocracy is way simpler but leaves initial practitioner with a blank page syndrom making them needing to reinvent most of their work
- Sociocracy 3.0 is modulable but complex to start with
And then I pondered recently on permaculture and management, and then onto governance and sociocracy, and discovered that you could use permaculture for governance (with bits of consent and circles inside, and double-linking and elections without candidates being nice additions). I still haven’t had the time to detail my ideas, but it mostly goes like this:
- planning could use the OBREDIM (observation, borders, resources, evaluation, design, implementation, maintenance) permaculture design approach to structure issues
- the circles (and sub-circles) are thought along the line of permaculture zoning like below. This also goes for analyzing issues and ensuring they’re properly contributing to the organizational ecosystem they belong to:
- 0 = you,
- 1 = the circle
- 2 = the community/organization
- 3 = the wider environment/ecosystem/bioregion where the organization resides
- 4 = the nation
- 5 = the world/Earth
- governance could benefit from the seven levels, with the following correspondance :
- canopy: strategy definition
- low trees: roadmaps, tactics, policies
- shrubs: operational stuff: projects and actions
- herbaceous: nutrients: what are the recurring resources that will feed the circle?
- rhizosphere (roots): digestion: how can learning be reinjected into the organizational culture?
- soil surface (ground cover): protection: how can we maintain and preserve our culture (all the while nourishing it)?
- vertical layer (vines): interconnections with other levels and circles
- and synchronization meetings (triage in Holacracy) or action planning benefit from the 12 principles to ensure the actions contribute the most effectively to the organization (do you create no waste? do you tap into renewable energy from people (ie in their strengths, not aside from then, etc. See my other posts on that)
That’s mostly it! When decisions need to be taken, you resort to consent after having clarified the issue using OBREDIM at all relevant levels (plants don’t achieve consensus, their behaviors mostly resemble consent to me). Elections are without candidates (plants don’t propose themselves, they each interact and structural coupling make some stand up given the local conditions). Circles are double-linked because it increases the communication channel variety through which complexity can express itself (the complexity is at most that of the communication channel). And of course a circle is the local ecosystem around a specific topic.
That way of organizing stuff also embeds elements from Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model. But I’ll let that proof as an exercise for the reader ;-)
Originally published at Appreciating Systems.