Sociocracy and Holacracy are both governance methods that aim to distribute decision-making authority across an organization. While they share some similarities, such as circular hierarchies and decision-making through consent, they also have their distinct differences.
1. **Origins and Intentions**:
* **Sociocracy** was developed by Kees Boeke, a Dutch educator, in the mid-20th century. The method was intended to apply principles of equivalence, effectiveness, and transparency in decision-making to all kinds of organizations. Sociocracy focuses on ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard and promotes dynamic governance based on consent decision making, circular organization, and double-linking.
* **Holacracy** was created by Brian Robertson in the early 21st century. It is a complete system for self-organization and is often seen as more structured than sociocracy. It also has a constitution that defines the roles and responsibilities of the team members and how they interact with each other. Holacracy's primary focus is on work roles and execution rather than individuals and their feelings.
2. **Structure and Decision-making**:
* **Sociocracy** operates on the principle of consent, where a policy decision can be made as long as no one has a reasoned and paramount objection to it. Consent here is not about agreement or preference but about making decisions that everyone can work with. The organization is divided into circles, and these circles are linked via a process called "double-linking," which means two people from one circle participate in the decision-making process of another circle.
* **Holacracy** has a defined constitution that guides the operations and decision-making within the organization. Decisions are made during governance meetings, where roles and accountabilities are clarified. Unlike sociocracy, holacracy doesn't require consent from all team members, but instead it operates on an integrative decision-making process where any objections must address the question: "Will this proposal cause harm to the role's purpose or accountabilities?"
3. **Focus**:
* **Sociocracy** puts more emphasis on people, their equivalency, and their relationships within the organization. It aims to maintain harmony and effectiveness by ensuring all voices are heard.
* **Holacracy** primarily emphasizes the work and the roles, not the people who fill those roles. It treats the organization as an entity that exists apart from the people, with its own purpose to express in the world.
4. **Adaptability and Flexibility**:
* **Sociocracy** is generally more adaptable and flexible. Organizations can adapt it to fit their existing structure and modify it as they see fit.
* **Holacracy**, on the other hand, is more rigid and requires organizations to adapt to it. It has a 30-page constitution that organizations must adopt, and there's not much room for modification.
In summary, the choice between sociocracy and holacracy depends on an organization's needs, culture, and objectives. Holacracy might be a better fit for organizations that prefer a more structured and defined set of rules, while sociocracy could be a better option for organizations that value flexibility, adaptability, and a focus on people and their relationships.
Want to print your doc? This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
Holocracy