Holacracy vs. Sociocracy: Choosing the Right Framework for Self-Organization

Holacracy is a self-organization framework that distributes authority through a codified rulebook of roles, circles, and governance processes. Sociocracy is its older relative—a more flexible framework based on four core principles. Both enable organizations to operate without traditional hierarchy, but they differ in important aspects.

This article provides a structured comparison of both frameworks. As Holacracy practitioners, we have a perspective, but we strive for fairness. Both approaches have their merits. The question is not which is better, but which fits your organization.

Commonalities: What Both Share

Before examining the differences, it is worth looking at what they share. Holacracy and Sociocracy share fundamental principles:

Distributed Authority: Both systems distribute decision-making power. Instead of a boss deciding everything, many people have authority in their domains.

Circle Structure: Both organize work in circles. Circles are self-organized units with their own purpose and decision-making processes.

Consent-Based Decisions: Both use consent (not consensus) as the decision principle. A decision is made when no one has a reasoned objection—not when everyone agrees.

Double Linking: Both connect circles through link roles. Information flows both top-down and bottom-up.

Evolutionary Approach: Both view structure as something that continuously evolves, not something that is set once and then maintained.

These commonalities are no accident. Holacracy was strongly influenced by Sociocracy. Brian Robertson, who developed Holacracy, knew Sociocracy and integrated many of its principles.

Sociocracy: Origins and Principles

Sociocracy has the longer history. The concept was developed in the 1970s by Gerard Endenburg in the Netherlands, based on cybernetic principles and the ideas of Kees Boeke.

Endenburg was an engineer who took over the electrical company Endenburg Elektrotechniek from his parents. He sought a management method that was both efficient and humane. His solution combined cybernetic feedback loops with democratic principles.

Research Insight: Endenburg’s approach is rooted in 20th-century cybernetics, specifically concepts like feedback loops and self-regulating systems. Academic literature documents over 50 years of Sociocracy practice, with the Dutch tradition particularly strong in cooperatives, schools, and healthcare. (Source: Historical Analysis of Sociocracy, Multiple Papers 1970-2020)

The Four Core Principles

Sociocracy is based on four core principles that are elegant and simple:

1. Consent Decisions: A decision is considered made when no one has a reasoned objection. This differs from consensus, where everyone must agree.

The difference is subtle but important:

• Consensus: “Does everyone agree?” If someone disagrees, discussion continues.
• Consent: “Does anyone have a reasoned objection?” Only if an objection shows the decision causes harm is it blocked.

An objection must show that the proposed decision endangers the circle’s ability to fulfill its purpose. “I don’t like it” is not an objection. “This will jeopardize our delivery capability” is one.

2. Circle Structure: Work is organized in circles. Each circle has a clearly defined purpose and the authority to make decisions within that purpose.

Circles are semi-autonomous: they manage their own affairs, but within the boundaries set by the parent circle. This nesting enables both specialization and integration.

3. Double Linking: Each circle is connected to the parent circle through two people:

• An appointed person from above (Leader): Brings the perspective of the parent circle, sets priorities.
• An elected person from below (Delegate): Brings the circle’s perspective into the parent circle.

Both have full voting rights in both circles. This bidirectionality distinguishes Sociocracy from traditional hierarchies, where information flows only top-down.

4. Open Elections: Roles within the circle are chosen through open discussion and consent, not by majority vote or appointment.

The process:

1. Each participant nominates someone (can also be themselves)
2. Each nomination is explained
3. Candidates can respond
4. The decision is made by consent

This process is more transparent than secret ballots and often leads to candidates with broad support.

Sociocracy in Practice

In a sociocratic organization, daily work looks like this:

• Circles meet regularly (typically monthly)
• Meetings combine operational and structural topics (no strict separation as in Holacracy)
• Decisions are made by consent
• Structure can be changed through proposals
• Conflicts are resolved within the circle or through the links
• Principles are adapted to the organization

Sociocracy is more flexible than Holacracy. There are fewer fixed rules and more room for organization-specific adaptations. The principles are guidelines, not a rigid rulebook.

Strengths of Sociocracy

Simplicity: Four principles are easier to understand and communicate than a 40-page constitution.

Flexibility: Organizations can adapt Sociocracy to their specific needs without “falling out of the system.”

Gradual Introduction: You can start with one circle or introduce individual principles without adopting the entire system.

Community and History: Sociocracy has a longer history and a broad community, especially in Europe and the non-profit sector.

Limitations of Sociocracy

Less Structure: The flexibility can also be a disadvantage. Without clear rules, discussions can spiral and decisions can remain unclear.

Variability: Different organizations practice Sociocracy very differently. There is less standardization.

Fewer Specialized Tools: The tool landscape for Sociocracy is less developed than for Holacracy.

Holacracy: Structure and Process

Holacracy was developed in 2007 by Brian Robertson. Robertson was CEO of Ternary Software and experimented with various management methods, including Sociocracy, agile methods, and Getting Things Done (GTD). From these influences, he developed Holacracy.

The name combines “Holon” (Greek for “part of a whole”) with “-cracy” (rule). A Holacracy is a rule of holons—self-organized units that are part of a larger whole.

The Constitution as Foundation

The biggest difference from Sociocracy is the Holacracy Constitution. It is a comprehensive rulebook divided into five articles:

Article 1 defines organizational structure: roles, circles, their properties, and relationships.

Article 2 describes the distribution of authority: What rights does each role-holder have? How far does their decision-making power extend?

Article 3 governs the governance process: How are structural decisions made? How do governance meetings proceed?

Article 4 defines operational processes: Tactical meetings, duties between roles, handling of projects.

Article 5 addresses adoption: How is Holacracy introduced? How can the constitution itself be changed?

The Constitution is approximately a 40-page document with precise rules. It leaves less room for interpretation than Sociocracy. This is both a strength and a weakness: more clarity, but less flexibility.

Integrative Decision-Making (IDM)

Holacracy has developed a formal process for governance decisions: Integrative Decision-Making (IDM). The process is more detailed than the typical sociocratic decision process:

1. Proposal: A concrete proposal is presented. The proposer describes their tension and their proposed solution.

2. Clarifying Questions: Questions for understanding are asked. No discussion, no opinions—only clarification.

3. Reaction Round: Everyone shares their reaction to the proposal. No discussion; the proposer only listens.

4. Amend & Clarify: The proposer can adjust their proposal based on the reactions.

5. Objection Round: Everyone can raise objections. The facilitator tests whether objections are valid (concrete harm to the organization).

6. Integration: Valid objections are integrated into the proposal. The process repeats until no valid objections remain.

This process is more formal and structured than Sociocracy. It requires more training but also provides more protection against spiraling discussions.

Roles vs. People

Holacracy strictly separates roles from people. This distinction is more fundamental than in Sociocracy:

A person is not their role. When a role is criticized, that is not criticism of the person.

A person can hold multiple roles. Work is distributed to roles, not to people.

Roles have defined elements:

• Purpose: Why does the role exist?
• Domains: What does the role have exclusive control over?
• Accountabilities: What does the role do on an ongoing basis?

This separation enables flexibility: roles can change without people having to change. It also protects against personal conflicts: discussions are about roles, not people.

Strengths of Holacracy

Clear Structure: The Constitution provides definitive answers to many questions. “How do we do this?” often has a defined answer.

Standardized Meetings: The separation between Governance and Tactical, the fixed meeting procedures, provide orientation.

Tool Support: GlassFrog, Holaspirit, and other tools support documentation and processes.

Community and Training: HolacracyOne offers standardized training and certification.

Limitations of Holacracy

Steep Learning Curve: Understanding and applying the Constitution requires time and training.

Less Flexibility: The rules are binding. Deviations mean “no longer doing Holacracy.”

Costs: Training, tools, and possibly external support require investment.

Complexity: For small or simple organizations, Holacracy can be over-engineered.

Direct Comparison

Aspect	Holacracy	Sociocracy
Origin	2007, USA	1970s, Netherlands
Rulebook	Constitution (~40 pages)	Four core principles
Flexibility	More structured, less flexible	More flexible, more adaptation
Decision Process	IDM (formal, detailed)	Consent (less formal)
Roles	Highly formalized	Less formalized
Meetings	Tactical + Governance (separate)	Circle meetings (combined)
Links	Lead Link + Rep Link + Cross Link	Leader + Delegate
Tools	GlassFrog, Holaspirit	Fewer specialized tools
Training/Certification	Formal certification by HolacracyOne	Various providers, less standardized
Learning Curve	Steeper	Flatter
Implementation	Formal (adopt Constitution)	More gradual possible

Research Insight: A comparative analysis shows: Holacracy dominates in tech companies and startups (68% of documented implementations), while Sociocracy prevails in non-profits and cooperatives (72% of cases). The choice correlates more strongly with sector than with company size. (Source: Comparative Analysis of 47 Case Studies, SI Labs Research Database)

When to Choose Sociocracy

Sociocracy fits better in certain contexts. Here are the key indicators:

You prefer a gradual introduction. Sociocracy can be introduced step by step. You do not have to adopt everything at once. You could, for example, start with consent decisions in one team without transforming the entire organization.

This gradual approach reduces risk. If something does not work, you have not upended the whole organization. It also enables learning: you understand the principles before scaling them.

You need flexibility. Sociocracy leaves more room for organization-specific adaptations. The principles are guidelines, not rigid rules. If your organization has special requirements (regulatory, cultural, historical), you can adapt Sociocracy without “falling out of the system.”

You work in a non-profit or community context. Sociocracy has strong roots in non-profits, cooperatives, and community organizations. The culture and examples often fit better. The language is less “business” and more “community.”

Examples: housing cooperatives, non-profit associations, schools, spiritual communities. In these contexts, Sociocracy is often more widespread and better documented.

You already have a participatory culture. If your organization is already accustomed to making decisions together, the transition to Sociocracy is smoother. The principles formalize what you may already be doing informally.

You have limited resources for implementation. Sociocracy requires less formal training and no expensive tools. The entry barrier is lower. Books and online resources are available and often free.

You are skeptical of “systems.” Sociocracy feels less like a rigid system and more like a set of principles. If your organization is allergic to “we’re now doing X,” the gentler approach of Sociocracy is often more acceptable.

When to Choose Holacracy

Holacracy fits better when other conditions apply:

You need clear structure. The Constitution provides a definitive framework. There are fewer discussions about “how do we do this” because the rules are defined. This is especially valuable if your organization has been chaotic or if people need clear orientation.

The structure also protects against power abuse. If someone tries to restore the old hierarchies, you can point to the Constitution.

You work in a fast-growing environment. Holacracy scales in a structured way. The clear rules help maintain consistency when many people join. New employees can read the Constitution and understand how the organization works.

You work in a technology or innovation environment. Holacracy was developed in this context. The examples (Zappos, Medium, etc.) and the community are strong in this area. The language and concepts fit tech cultures.

Research Insight: Research shows that tech sector companies with Holacracy report a 30% higher success rate than in other sectors. Factors: high education, affinity for structured systems, existing Agile experience. A Mercedes-Benz.io study (2021) documents successful Holacracy use in an automotive digital unit with 23 citations. (Source: Sector Analysis, Theme T00 + Mercedes-Benz.io Case Study)

You prefer binding rules. In Holacracy, the Constitution applies. There is less room for “we do it differently here,” which creates clarity. If someone breaks the rules, it can be named.

You want structured meetings. The separation between Tactical and Governance, the clear meeting procedures, give meetings a framework. If your meetings have been chaotic, Holacracy provides structure.

You are willing to invest in training. Holacracy requires more formal training, but the training is also more standardized and available. The investment pays off because people truly understand the system.

You want to be part of a community. HolacracyOne offers a community, events, and resources. If you value exchange with other practitioners, this community is valuable.

Hybrid Approaches

In practice, many organizations combine elements from both systems. There are various options:

Sociocracy 3.0 (S3)

Sociocracy 3.0 is an evolution that combines elements from Sociocracy, Holacracy, and agile methods. Instead of a complete framework, S3 offers modular “patterns” that can be introduced individually.

There are over 70 patterns, including:

• Consent decisions
• Circle structure
• Governance meetings
• Role clarification
• Feedback processes

Organizations can choose the patterns that fit their needs and leave out others. This makes S3 particularly flexible.

S3 is attractive for organizations that want to stay flexible but seek more structure than classic Sociocracy. It is also an option for teams within larger organizations that want to experiment with self-organization.

Custom Frameworks

Some organizations develop their own systems that combine elements of various approaches. This requires more design work but enables maximum fit.

Examples of combinations:

• Sociocracy principles with Holacracy meeting structures
• Holacracy roles with a less strict constitution
• Custom decision processes based on consent

Warning: Developing a custom framework is demanding. Without deep understanding of the principles, you can easily forget important elements or create inconsistent systems. We recommend practicing an existing system first before developing your own.

Holacracy as Starting Point

A common strategy: Start with the standard Holacracy Constitution and then make adjustments over the years. This way, you learn the system before changing it.

This is our approach at SI Labs. We started with standard Holacracy and have made adjustments over the years that fit us:

• Shorter, more frequent governance meetings
• Asynchronous governance for simple changes
• Integrated retrospectives
• Flexible cross-links

These adjustments are the result of years of experience. We recommend working with the standard Constitution for at least a year before adapting.

Our Perspective

As Holacracy practitioners, we have an opinion, but we try to be fair.

Why we chose Holacracy:

• The clear structure helped us in the early phase
• The Constitution gave us a framework to orient ourselves
• The available resources (training, tools, community) were helpful
• Our context (innovation, technology) fit the Holacracy community

When we would recommend Sociocracy:

• When an organization wants to get started more gradually
• When the culture is already strongly participatory
• When resources for Holacracy training are not available
• When the non-profit context is important

The choice between Holacracy and Sociocracy is less important than the commitment to self-organization. A well-implemented Sociocracy is better than a poorly implemented Holacracy—and vice versa.

The Decision Is Not Permanent

An important point: The choice is not forever. Organizations can switch, combine elements, or go their own way.

Some organizations start with Sociocracy because the entry barrier is lower, and later switch to Holacracy when they need more structure.

Others start with Holacracy and loosen the rules over the years, moving toward Sociocracy.

More important than the choice of framework is the question: Is your organization ready for self-organization? If yes, both paths can work. If no, neither will.

Conclusion

Holacracy and Sociocracy are related but different approaches to self-organization.

Sociocracy offers four flexible principles and leaves room for organization-specific adaptations. It can be introduced more gradually and has lower entry barriers.

Holacracy offers a comprehensive rulebook with clear structure. It requires more initial commitment but also provides more orientation.

Both can work. The question is what fits your organization, your culture, and your resources.

If you are unsure, we recommend:

1. Get to know both approaches (read the Constitution, read about Sociocracy)
2. Talk to practitioners of both systems
3. Consider what fits your culture
4. Make a decision and commit to it

Self-organization is a path, not a destination. Whatever framework you choose, it will evolve with your organization.

---

This article is part of our series on self-organization. Further articles: Holacracy: A Practitioner’s Guide, Implementing Holacracy, Holacracy at SI Labs, Why Holacracy Fails. For more practical examples, see our Holacracy Case Studies Overview.

The Research Insights in this article are based on an analysis of 655 academic papers on Holacracy and self-organization (2012-2025).