A few weeks ago Aude Caussarieu on Mastodon drew my attention to a 1973 article (an assembly of elements from 1971 to 1973 by Jo Freeman), recently revised, on “the tyranny of horizontality”. This refers to the type of horizontal organization (sociocracy, holacracy) that I enjoy thinking about and whose principles I have been able to apply and adapt, particularly at benext. This text should be called in French “tyranny of the absence of structure”, which seems to me the true translation, and that already implies something else. This gap is important, we often confuse absence of structure and horizontality, or rather, we unfortunately like to imagine that horizontality is the absence of structure. Jo Freeman’s article is very interesting.

Disclaimer: I don’t know Aude, she agreed to let me cite her. I thank her for pointing me to this text.

For this article to remain a human size, and to take a reflective angle, I will build on the remarks that Aude makes while rereading the text. Perhaps later I will have other opportunities to zoom in on this text again. My objective here is to give the point of my experience on the subject both theoretical and practical (at benext for example, but also at certain “clients”). It’s both a very small experience, and at the same time a very large experience.

“Laissez-faire within the group is about as realistic as laissez-faire in society.”

“Laissez-faire within the group is about as realistic as laissez-faire in society. The idea becomes a smokescreen that allows the strong or the lucky to exercise power over others that no one will challenge.”

In the text, the following sentence is worth adding: “a form of hegemony can thus easily establish itself within a group, because the idea of horizontality prevents the formation of formal structures, but not informal structures”.

It must be understood that this text is called “the tyranny of the absence of structure”. And this is a key point that I encounter in many conversations about sociocracy, or holacracy, or “liberated companies”, the muddle, the mix-up, the confusion between the desire for absence of structure, absence of framework, absence of rules, and true “horizontal” organizations (sociocracy, holacracy) which do have a structure and very defined rules, brought back, reduced, to essential but rigorous elements.

The whole idea of these “horizontal” organizations is to make people responsible, to give them autonomy (whether that’s to engage them and have more performance or not is another debate). To make responsible and give autonomy, you must define a framework and a direction. A clear objective and clear rules to put it differently. And in this space, people can take responsibility, have autonomy. This framework must provide this space. It’s the size of this space that will be important. Either it’s too small, this space (too many rules, too many constraints), and we suffocate. We’re not responsible, we’re not autonomous. Or, this space is too large, there are no limits, it’s the void. And when it’s the void, “what’s the point?”, and it’s like the jungle, you find everything there, everything is permitted. And with the jungle comes the law of the jungle.

This space is defined as much by its framework (the rules, what I can do and what I cannot do), as by its direction, its objective, its meaning. This is the whole fascinating side of the organization of this structuring.

“Thus, the absence of structures becomes a way to hide power”.

“Thus, the absence of structures becomes a way to hide power, and it is generally the most powerful members of feminist movements (whether they are conscious of their power or not) who are its most fervent supporters.”

I would say that people seeking an absence of structure (which is NOT a structure called “horizontal” – but it’s not really horizontal – like sociocracy or holacracy), are seeking total freedom of movement. Generally they want to choose without being hindered by any limit: rules, processes, sharing, visibility, coherence. No need for managerial courage when there are no constraints.

Once again we are not here in a horizontal organization of the sociocratic or holacratic type. But this is indeed what the author alerts us to: about the mirage, the illusion that the absence of structure and constraint is a form of structuring, of organization (called horizontal).

I take this opportunity to clarify a point that I mention above. Horizontality is also an illusion. And we find this idea in the text, it seems to me. What we call horizontality is a drastic reduction of the hierarchical levels that we usually encounter in traditional organizations. We shrink the pyramid, but the pyramid remains. Although we often represent it organically, we could very well systematically draw a pyramid, small, with few levels, concerning “horizontal” organizations.

The difference with these horizontal organizations on this subject is therefore: many fewer levels, and a capacity for decision-making, for power, at each level concerning its perimeter. True autonomy, true accountability at each level, in each element. And not a systematic need to go up the decision chain and the power of a traditional pyramidal organization. Thus, defining the power of each level is fundamental.

The entire rest of the remarks raised by Aude relates to the characteristics of this “star system” that feeds on the absence of structuring, of non-organization. This is not the subject of true “horizontal” organizations of the sociocracy or holacracy type, so I’ll skip it.

The solutions proposed by Jo Freeman (in 1971-1973)

“1) The delegation of a specific form of authority to specific individuals, for the purpose of accomplishing specific tasks, through democratic procedures”

Is added: “If individuals are selected to carry out a particular task, preferably after having expressed their interest or desire to do so, they have made a commitment from which they can hardly back out.”

Simply we’re talking again here about the framework I mentioned and attached is an example of a “postcard” of a circle that allows defining expectations and accountabilities in sociocracy/holacracy.

Two clarifications:

  • The term “democratic procedure” needs to be clarified. This is typically a matter of decision-making: consent, compromise, “advice process”, etc., and it must be defined according to the context.
  • Mark of interest: the notion of invitation is central. To constitute a circle – at benext (my previous company, which was bought by an American group in 2021) for example – the circle of people is constituted by people who make sense with the subject, and only by those who express the desire to participate. But since it’s the place of decision-making on the subject, if you decide not to participate, you accept not to have decision-making power on the subject. And naturally a circle cannot include too many people. We therefore enter into this difficulty of carving out – quite organically – that allows everyone to have a space where they can learn and contribute something.

“2) Requiring all those to whom a form of authority has been delegated to be accountable to those who selected them.”

The text adds “This is how the group can exercise control over those who hold authority. Even if power is in the hands of individuals, ultimately, it’s the group that decides how this power is exercised”.

My clarifications: as we said in my contexts, circles are constituted by people who make sense, and who have been invited (it’s not simple in a company). There is “selection” only by meaning therefore. They are accountable in sociocracy or in holacracy through their accountabilities, metrics and checklists that allow regular validation of the state of affairs. Because their framework is a set of rules AND one or more objectives.

Another clarification, in the organizational systems that I try to build of the sociocracy or holacracy type: all debates or actions undertaken are communicated transparently to the rest of the organization. Duly noted. But be careful not to fall into another tyranny, that of transparency. We communicate about our actions, our difficulties, our successes, in relation to the objectives and framework of the circle. It’s absolutely not a matter of being transparent about everything. And sometimes it’s even forbidden: HR aspects for example, the company buyout in progress, another example. The confidentiality of certain subjects exists and is commendable, or at a minimum legally required.

Another thing that could be implied in the formulation of “control”. I said earlier that even in horizontal organizations of the sociocratic or holacratic type, there is a pyramid. It’s reduced, it has few floors compared to traditional organizations. But it remains a pyramid. At the top of a sociocratic or holacratic organization we speak for example of an encompassing circle: the management committee? Yes in a sense. In any case the creation of a circle comes from the top “we need…”. So in the text I understand “control” as “we are kept informed” (and in case of disagreement we can leave or protest, but not control, or decide what is outside our scope).

“3) Distribute authority among as many individuals as possible, within reasonable limits.”

The text adds “This avoids the monopoly of power, and forces those who hold authority to consult many other people when exercising it. These people then have the opportunity to be responsible for specific tasks, and therefore to acquire different skills.”

This is the whole idea of sociocracy: a pyramid, yes, but a pyramid of decision spaces. That the decision takes place in the right place. And therefore all the interest, all the difficulty, is to structure the organization so as to have autonomous perimeters that can make their own decisions.

Refer to this article which is an excerpt from the “Little Manual of Organizational Thinking”.

Incomplete example of organization in circles

“4) The rotation of tasks among individuals.”

The text adds: “If a person retains the same responsibilities for too long, formally or informally, these responsibilities come to be perceived as ‘belonging’ to that person, who then has difficulty giving them up, and any control by the group becomes difficult.”

I would like to give two points of view on this question. First I believe a lot in self-organization, so my mojo is rather: “figure it out” meaning “within this framework, figure it out”, and all the work is to structure well (that doesn’t mean structure too much) the framework. Thus I don’t decide whether the fact that the same person remains for a long time or not in the same responsibilities is good or not good. I look at whether the group is doing well.

Then it’s worth noting, in sociocracy and holacracy, the framework (rules and objective(s)) that exists for circles, also exists to define the role or roles of each person. I actually find that a) it’s too verbose and considerably weighs down the vehicle, and b) that precisely it anchors people in postures and goes against self-organization. I prohibit it, and therefore don’t use roles.

“5) The dissemination of information to all members as often as possible.”

The text adds “Information is power. Access to information increases the power of individuals. When an informal network disseminates new ideas and information within itself, but without involving the group, it is already engaged in a process of forming its own opinion, without the group participating”.

I mentioned this in point 2. Beware of the tyranny of transparency. The whole point is to constantly place our cursors well: space of the framework, clarity of information, etc.

Conclusion for today

Well that’s it for today (there’s a point 6 at the margin). These organizations – sociocratic, holacratic – are fascinating, but they are certainly not the absence of structuring. And that’s exactly what the text says.