Discovering circle-based organization

In the large family of organizations with no pyramidal hierarchy, there is a whole category inspired by the sociocracy of G. Edenburg, which proposes a structure for the distribution of roles in circles. Let's see how it is made and some pitfalls to avoid...

Welcome to the world of roles

Start first by identifying the Purpose of your organization. Then, to best serve that Purpose, identify all the necessary roles that must be held. At some point, overwhelmed by too many roles, you’ll have to organize them a little. So you then group them together by assembling those for which you can identify a common purpose, as a kind of super-role, which we can call a circle. We can then recursively continue combining these super roles, make super circles of circles and roles, until we can encompass all the activities of the organization into one big circle.
In this fictional world, this parallel dimension inhabited by roles, their organization is therefore all the most classical, i.e. pyramidal. A role is in a circle, which is included in a larger circle, etc.

Meanwhile, in our universe, we humans choose to take on roles.
Note that if everyone takes roles in a single circle, then the human organization finds itself following the organization of roles. In other words, it is also pyramidal, since you can identify a leader for each person. Classical organizations are therefore a special case of circle organizations.
The situation becomes much more interesting when humans decide to freely choose roles spread over different circles.

When we build a shared governance, we start by agreeing on a Purpose, then we make a first big set of Circles (for example: HR, Accounting, Sales, Operations, General Services...), and we will ask everyone to choose ONE preferred circle, the one where we anticipate that the roles we will take on will be the most important. The teams thus formed can then meet to elaborate the purpose of this circle, and list the different roles that will be found there. If necessary, role packages can be grouped under a common purpose, and a sub-circle is then created.

A few points of attention

• Among the roles of each sub-circle, there is a special one that is found everywhere, the lead link role. It is the role of embodying and protecting the purpose of the Circle. For example, define strategy, allocate resources, and in particular facilitate the assignement of role to individuals through facilitation of governance meetings. As she embodies the purpose of her circle, she is also the first link that represents the circle in his "parent" circle. This is an important role but it does not take more than a few hours a week.
• To achieve its purpose, a circle has to produce something that will be delivered to other circles or external partners (customers, suppliers, state...). These deliverables are called Accountabilities since they are what the circle owes to the outside world. It is highly recommended to define them by consulting the receiving stakeholders as much as possible. So the first meeting is actually to identify the other circles with which we will interact, and to schedule a series of meetings with them to ask them to specify their need.
• It is crucial not to be influenced by the team’s individualities. It is really the purpose of the circle and its accountabilities that must take precedence in definition of roles. Even if there are not enough people or not enough skills to take on all the roles, they should be listed without feeling limited by the composition of the team. It is sometimes a little vertiginous when there are only 2 or 3 people for a circle whose domain is considerable...
• Once the purpose of the circle and its roles have been defined, the team members will probably, as they expected, fill most of their agenda with roles from the circle. However, it is important for every contributor to quickly discover the roles that have been defined in other circles in order not to ossify in a single circle and ensure a good permeability between circles by having cross-circles individuals. Moreover, there are often roles that must be played by all members of the organization. For example, if in our organization there is a dishwashing chore role, when my turn is up I actually take a role in the "homecare" circle, which is in addition to my main roles which may very well be in a completely different circle.
• No need to put too much pressure on yourself to define the first circles and roles. It is much easier to start with a very rough cut, and then, iteratively, everything evolves and redefines itself through governance meetings.

To which level of detail should we go in the description of roles?

There is no predefined recommendation. The two main factors that determine the level of details to be provided are the complexity of any potential interaction with the outside world on the one hand, and the need felt by the individual taking the role on the other. Some people appreciate more than others holding a detailed description of all their tasks at hand. When someone else takes over the role, it is quite possible that she will revisit this level of detail to another level that will suit her better.

But why are we bothering ourselves like this?

The intellectual effort to decouple roles and people has many benefits. An important one is to avoid that conflicts that may exist between roles spoil over interpersonal relationships. "Among all my roles, my role X presents a problem in relation to that role Y that you wear among all your roles".

It also gives much more freedom and responsibility to everyone because when you take a role, you fully own it. As a result, if we have a non-coercitive role allocation technique, we can then put individuals in a situation where no one gives them an order without consent, and yet decisions and collective work emerge.

For this to work, it is crucial that many individuals seize this power of action by initiating decisions that were previously vested in leaders only. Derek Sivers shows in 3 minutes how it works

What is a good ratio of shirtless guys in an organization ?

In the example above, the "shirtless guy" does not ask permission from anyone to start his movement. But at the same time, what he proposes is rather futile, does not carry much consequence. Of course, in an organization that has to face more structuring decisions, it is important that these initiatives are taken inconsideration of the environment and the collective, to ensure that all stakeholders are involved towards these new commitments. This is why, before taking action, it is necessary to share one’s intention to act with:

• People impacted by the decision, since they will bear the consequences ;
• People experts in the field, since they will be able to give valuable advices.

This is a description that may seem a little vague at first glance. How to identify these people? When can we consider that we have reasonably informed them? How long should we wait before proceeding ?

What we actually learn from experience is that many decisions are similar, and if the first 2-3 are indeed a little chaotic to execute, they will then de facto set a precedent and it will become more and more difficult to derogate from them. Practice has become a process, or at least an element of the group’s culture.

That said, not all decisions are recurrent and there are still many that do need to be dealt with and for which there is no jurisdprudence to refer. Having a good digital infrastructure, allowing rich and fluid exchanges of information, can greatly help to reach the right people. But transparency of exchanges and mutual recognition actually begins in the physical world, for example by wearing distinctive signs, systematically greeting each other in the corridors, organizing meetings in highly visible spaces, not far from busy places, close to other centres of life (where others are, whether they are in meetings, at lunchtime or on breaks, etc.). These practices help to create a climate of trust and intimacy where it is easier to dare to interact.

Once these people have been identified, most decisions can be made by simply consulting them. For the few delicate decisions to be dealt with, we can use a collective intelligence tool such as Integrative Decision Making.

All hands on deck ! Everyone can have good ideas

This decision-making process is designed so that really anyone can initiate one. You never stand still waiting, hoping that “it is someone else’s job, it’s going to be taken care of”. Actually, if someone is working on the same decision or a conflicting one, the integrative process will lead you to find these people and you’ll get together.

In particular, having "elected" someone does not make him a leader. If, for example, someone was elected into a lead link role by an integrative election process, it is quite likely that this person was elected because he or she demonstrates leadership qualities, which had an influence on everyone’s vote, but this role does not place expectations on the person who holds it in terms of operational decision-making. Everyone is sovereign only in their role and being the lead link is only a role of a few hours a week, among the many roles that can be identified within a circle.

There is no silver bullet

In particular, while the role of the first link is to embody the purpose of being outside, it is not mandated by default to make decisions that engage others, or to create/modify roles without having shared a prior intention. In concrete terms, this is a particularly confusing situation for traditional external organizations such as partners who ask to speak to a leader or equivalent, someone who can decide for everyone.

Another confusing aspect is that since any decision can come from anyone, it inevitably results in duplication, unnecessary initiatives, "failures"... it is important to accept it, not to lament and be discouraged, nor to try to prevent it from happening again, blocking the advent of any new initiatives. It is also important to maintain an atmosphere of caring that encourages this risk-taking by not stigmatizing aborted initiatives. And for the initiator of the initiative, not to make it a matter of self-esteem even if he has put all the richness of his personality into promoting the idea.

To summarize

• The organization we build is a fiction in which we all believe together but which lives in a parallel universe where there are no humans.
• We define many roles and subroles, and humans get assigned roles here and there through governance meetings
• Accountability is a duty to an external entity = as much as possible, you should go and meet with the recipients to discuss it
• The domain of a circle is not tied to the number of people who are interested in it.
• It helps to quickly look for supporting roles in other circles.
• Everything is changing and will evolve. From there, there is no need to put too much pressure on yourself to find the perfect organization from the first draft.
• Similarly, the level of role precision does not need to be uniform: it is done as simply as possible, depending on the need.
• Shared governance of circle organizations brings freedom and responsibility to each worker.
• The organization evolves in response to impulses that can come from anyone.
• To make a decision, we share our intention with the impacted and the experts.
• Digital technology makes information liquid and facilitates the search for these impacted and experts
• Transparency is also about creating physical intimacy with distinctive signs, talking to each other when we meet at any time, sharing the place...
• For sensitive decisions, Integrative Decision Process can then be used.
• It is important to have many people initiating decisions, especially not to rely on the first link to launch all decisions.
• Having elected a first link does not confer any power or mandate on him. It represents the Purpose but has no legitimacy to commit others individuals.
• Partners will be constantly confused because they are not people-centric and ask to meet mandated people who can commit on behalf of the group.
• It will be necessary to get used to fail fast and often, duplicate efforts, etc. Use your individuality to express yourself, put your pride aside.