Five Years of Sociocracy: What Have We Learned?

The year 2025 brought us two major milestones as an organization: Grupo Esfera celebrated 20 years as a company, and we reached the 5-year mark of our organizational design based on sociocracy. I say "based on sociocracy" because I am not entirely clear on how much purity there is in our current structure.

For 15 years, we ran multiple experiments, dynamics, and teams with the intention and goal of practicing self-management. We made so many attempts that I'm not sure we even remember them all. It is inevitable for us—because it is part of our DNA—that five years into this new organizational design, we reflect on a few key learnings:

1. Tension between time dedicated to clients and internal management

Our structure features management circles, communities of practice, and client-facing service teams. It is a structure rigid enough to make things happen, yet flexible enough to adapt. However, we cannot escape the well-known "short blanket" dilemma (trying to cover too much with too little). A defining characteristic of our self-management model is that most management circles are composed of team members who also serve clients.

Finding a balance between both roles—the internal role within a chosen management circle and the external role with the client—can be stressful. Naturally, each individual manages their schedule, energy, and focus as best as they can; we haven't found a silver bullet recipe to solve this dilemma. What we have learned is to look out for one another in this regard: "Aren't you taking on too much?", "How can I help so you can focus on that other task?", "I need to let go of this topic."

2. The cost of learning what we don't know

Many of us jumped at the chance to assume responsibilities in internal management without fully knowing what we were getting into. And not just because of schedule pressure, but because we literally lacked domain knowledge in those specific areas. In my case—to avoid bringing up other examples—I joined the Culture and Integration Circle out of interest in the circle's original backlog. Five years have passed since then. We had several successes, such as establishing our Cultural Pillars and driving the organizational retrospective, but at some point, the "obvious backlog" ran out. And then we didn't know how to move forward: What else does a culture circle do? What else should we be doing? We held onto these questions for months—I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say years. We invested time and energy trying to answer them to the point of exhaustion: within the circle, with the board of directors, and with others, only to reach the conclusion that we don't know what else to do and that perhaps this circle is no longer needed. I still doubt whether we are right.

The journey of learning self-management generates delays, fatigue, and a high probability of error.

3. Alignment or autonomy?

We trust in collective intelligence; we believe that the best ideas emerge from the pool of ideas available. But sometimes we overreach. Maintaining the autonomy of management circles without losing alignment remains a challenge. Our strategy has been holding "massive meetings" where decision-making is tough, or holding numerous small-group meetings where deciding is equally difficult. Making decisions takes us a lot of time and involves going around in circles on a topic. What is hardest to accept is that, despite deliberating so much, we know that two or three people ultimately have the final say—which is the only thing that guarantees strategic alignment.

These insights emerged during our first management circle retrospective, facilitated by Marcos Wolff in July. Masterfully facilitated, he guided our conversations, helping us uncover patterns and identify areas for improvement. Because that's what it's all about: becoming horizontal (referencing Samantha Slade's book ‘Going Horizontal’ by Samantha Slade) without expecting to get it right immediately, but by iterating step by step, while safeguarding the impact on our clients and the quality of the software we build.