GL033: Working Groups / Circles

1. Overview

The “Working Groups / Circles” pattern is a fundamental organizational structure for decentralized, self-organizing systems. It involves the creation of small, autonomous teams (the “working groups” or “circles”) that are given a specific domain of responsibility and the authority to make decisions within that domain. The core purpose of this pattern is to distribute power and decision-making throughout an organization, moving away from traditional hierarchical structures towards a more networked and resilient model. By empowering small, focused groups to take ownership of specific functions or projects, organizations can increase their agility, responsiveness, and overall effectiveness. This pattern is particularly well-suited for complex environments where it is impossible for a central authority to have all the necessary information to make timely and effective decisions.

This pattern directly addresses the problem of bottlenecks and single points of failure that are common in hierarchical organizations. In traditional structures, decisions must often travel up and down a chain of command, which can be slow and inefficient. This can stifle innovation and prevent those with the most relevant knowledge from contributing to the decision-making process. The Working Groups / Circles pattern solves this problem by delegating authority to the edges of the organization, allowing those closest to the work to make decisions and take action. This not only speeds up decision-making but also increases the engagement and motivation of team members, who are given a greater sense of ownership and purpose. The origin of this pattern can be traced back to the principles of sociocracy, a system of governance developed by Gerard Endenburg in the Netherlands in the 1970s. Endenburg, an electrical engineer and entrepreneur, applied the principles of cybernetics to human organizations to create a more effective and equitable way of working together. The concept of “circles” as autonomous, self-governing units is a cornerstone of the sociocratic method. More recently, this pattern has been popularized by frameworks such as Holacracy, which provides a more prescriptive and role-based approach to implementing self-organizing circles.

From a commons-aligned perspective, the Working Groups / Circles pattern is a powerful tool for creating and sustaining value in a distributed and equitable manner. By decentralizing power and decision-making, it helps to prevent the concentration of control in the hands of a few, which is a key principle of commons governance. This pattern fosters a culture of collaboration and mutual support, where individuals are empowered to contribute their unique skills and knowledge to the collective good. It also promotes transparency and accountability, as the work of each circle is visible to the rest of the organization. In a commons-based peer production context, this pattern can be used to organize and coordinate the work of a large number of contributors, allowing them to self-organize into focused working groups to tackle specific tasks and projects. This enables the creation of complex and sophisticated commons, from open-source software to collaborative encyclopedias, without the need for traditional command-and-control management.

2. Core Principles

1. Decentralized Authority: Power and decision-making are distributed throughout the organization, rather than being concentrated at the top. Each circle has a clear domain of responsibility and the authority to make decisions within that domain.
2. Consent-Based Decision-Making: Decisions within circles are typically made by consent, which means that a decision can be made as long as no one has a reasoned objection. This is different from consensus, which requires everyone to agree. Consent allows for faster decision-making while still ensuring that all voices are heard.
3. Double-Linking: Circles are connected to each other through a system of double-linking. This means that each circle has at least two people who are also members of a higher-level circle. This ensures that information flows freely between circles and that the work of each circle is aligned with the overall goals of the organization.
4. Autonomy and Accountability: Circles are autonomous within their domain, but they are also accountable for their results. They are expected to track their own progress, measure their own performance, and make adjustments as needed.
5. Equivalence: Within a circle, all members are considered equal participants in the decision-making process. There is no formal hierarchy within the circle, and all voices are given equal weight.
6. Continuous Improvement: The Working Groups / Circles pattern is not a static system. It is designed to be a dynamic and evolving process of continuous improvement. Circles are encouraged to regularly review their own processes and make changes as needed to improve their effectiveness.

3. Key Practices

1. Defining Clear Domains: Each circle must have a clearly defined domain of responsibility. This includes a clear purpose, a set of accountabilities, and a list of the specific decisions that the circle is authorized to make.
2. Role-Based Structure: Within each circle, work is typically organized around roles rather than job titles. Each role has a clear purpose, a set of accountabilities, and a list of the specific actions that the role is authorized to take.
3. Governance Meetings: Circles hold regular governance meetings to make decisions about their own structure and processes. This includes creating and modifying roles, defining and changing policies, and electing people to fill roles.
4. Tactical Meetings: Circles also hold regular tactical meetings to coordinate their day-to-day work. This includes sharing updates, identifying and resolving tensions, and planning upcoming work.
5. The Selection Process: People are selected for roles through a consent-based process. This ensures that the person selected for a role is the best fit for the role and has the support of the other members of the circle.
6. Rounds: During meetings, circles often use rounds to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak. In a round, each person speaks one at a time without interruption.
7. Objection and Integration: When a proposal is being considered, members of the circle have the opportunity to raise objections. An objection is not a personal preference, but a reasoned argument for why the proposal would cause harm or move the circle backward. If an objection is raised, the group works together to integrate the objection and find a solution that is safe to try.
8. Transparency: All governance records, including the roles, policies, and decisions of each circle, are made transparent to everyone in the organization. This promotes accountability and allows for cross-circle collaboration.

4. Implementation

Implementing the Working Groups / Circles pattern requires a significant shift in mindset and culture. It is not something that can be done overnight, but rather a gradual process of learning and adaptation. The first step is to get buy-in from leadership and to create a clear vision for why the organization is making this change. It is also important to provide training and coaching to help people understand the new system and to develop the skills they need to work effectively in a self-organizing environment. A good place to start is with a pilot project in a specific area of the organization. This allows the organization to experiment with the new system on a small scale and to learn from its mistakes before rolling it out to the rest of the organization.

Once the pilot project is underway, the next step is to start creating the basic building blocks of the system. This includes defining the overall purpose of the organization, creating the top-level circle, and defining its domain and accountabilities. From there, the top-level circle can create sub-circles for specific functions or projects, and so on. It is important to remember that this is an iterative process. The structure of the organization will evolve over time as the organization learns and adapts to its environment. It is also important to have a clear process for resolving disputes and for making changes to the governance of the organization. This is typically done through the governance meetings of the circles.

There are many real-world examples of organizations that have successfully implemented the Working Groups / Circles pattern. One of the most well-known examples is Zappos, the online shoe retailer, which adopted Holacracy in 2014. Another example is Buurtzorg, a Dutch home care organization that is organized into a network of self-managing teams. These organizations have shown that it is possible to create highly effective and scalable organizations without traditional hierarchy. However, it is also important to be aware of the challenges. Implementing this pattern can be difficult and disruptive, and it is not a good fit for every organization. It requires a high degree of trust, transparency, and personal responsibility. It also requires a willingness to experiment and to learn from mistakes.

5. 7 Pillars Assessment

6. When to Use

• When you want to move away from a traditional hierarchical structure and towards a more decentralized and self-organizing model.
• When you need to increase the agility and responsiveness of your organization.
• When you want to increase the engagement and motivation of your team members.
• In complex environments where it is impossible for a central authority to have all the necessary information to make timely and effective decisions.
• When you want to foster a culture of collaboration, transparency, and accountability.
• In commons-based peer production projects to coordinate the work of a large number of contributors.

7. Anti-Patterns and Gotchas

• Lack of clear domains: If the domains of the circles are not clearly defined, it can lead to confusion, turf wars, and a lack of accountability.
• Insufficient training and coaching: This is a new way of working for most people, and it requires new skills and mindsets. Without adequate training and coaching, people will struggle to adapt.
• Leadership not walking the talk: If the leaders of the organization do not fully embrace the new system and continue to operate in a command-and-control manner, it will undermine the entire effort.
• Confusing consent with consensus: Consent is not about everyone agreeing, but about there being no reasoned objections. If this distinction is not understood, it can lead to gridlock and slow decision-making.
• Ignoring the importance of culture: This pattern is not just a mechanical system. It is a cultural shift that requires a high degree of trust, transparency, and psychological safety.
• Implementing it as a rigid dogma: While frameworks like Holacracy can be helpful, it is important to adapt the pattern to the specific needs and context of your organization. A one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to succeed.

8. References

1. Sociocracy for All
2. Holacracy
3. Reinventing Organizations by Frederic Laloux
4. The Buurtzorg model
5. Commons-based peer production - Wikipedia