I wrote a post about this: "Holacracy vs. Hierarchy vs. Flat Orgs" https://blog.holacracy.org/holacracy-vs-hierarchy-vs-flat-or...
14 karma · joined April 19, 2011
Olivier Compagne @oliviercp
I wrote a post about this: "Holacracy vs. Hierarchy vs. Flat Orgs" https://blog.holacracy.org/holacracy-vs-hierarchy-vs-flat-or...
Holacracy® is a specific system with clear rules (available here: http://holacracy.org/constitution ), and is far more structured than what you describe in your article. See for example the structure of my organization running with Holacracy: https://glassfrog.holacracy.org/organizations/5
It's mistake to associate Holacracy to flat organizations — Holacracy is actually FARTHER AWAY from a flat organization than it is from a conventional hierarchy. It pushes very strongly about the looseness and lack of clarity around accountabilities in a structure-less org. It even pushes against the lack of clarity in conventional hierarchies as well. Overall, Holacracy instills more structure in an organization, not less.
Ev Williams, who uses it at Medium, puts it this way:
"Holacracy is the opposite of the cliché way to run a startup. People think "freedom, no job description, everybody does everything, it's totally flat, and that's cool because we're all down with those rules". But actually that creates tons of anxiety and inefficiency, and various modes of dysfunction, whether we have to build consensus around every decision, or I'm gonna do a land grab for power... People romanticize startup cultures, but I know it's fairly rare that people in startups say "this is it, it is amazing and everybody is super-productive and going along". So in Holacracy, one of the principles is to make the implicit explicit — tons of it is about creating clarity: who is in charge of what, who is taking what kind of decision — and there is also a system for defining that, and changing that, so it's very flexible at the same time." (source: https://medium.com/p/89fb713a8786 )
So... I'm afraid your assessment of Holacracy is really backward. I'm not saying Holacracy is perfect, but it's certainly not flawed in the ways you describe.
@oliviercp
They think it's against Holacracy, because they mistakenly believe that Holacracy simply means "flat org". Then they build an entire argument around this error...
Since the Zappos story, people talk about "holacracy" here and there. In reality, there are few organizations actually using Holacracy® — the system defined in the constitution you link to. Github isn't part of them, Valve either. Zappos and Medium are.
To answer your question, the secret sauce of Holacracy is the Holacracy Constitution – it replaces the CEO in deciding how decisions get made and how we organize. See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=31MljhiyxZ8
Also, you might be interested in two blog posts published in the past couple days in reaction to the often-inaccurrate press: - "Five Misconceptions About Holacracy" https://medium.com/about-holacracy/da84d8ba15e1 - "Holacracy at Zappos" by a Zappos' employee: http://rianschmidt.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/holacracy-at-zap...
That said if you want the technicalities of the process, you'll find everything in the constitution (not as entertaining, but more accurate): http://holacracy.org/constitution
Of course you need a way to modify the roles' definitions; there is a governance process for that, at each team level, and any team member can propose modifying the roles, not only the "Lead Link" (contrary to what this quote mistakenly suggests). I hope this clarifies a bit.
But not with 2). Holacracy is not just a set of vague principles that you swear to apply as best as you can, or some bolt-on process to add to your box. It's a completely different way of governing a company, a different power structure, and its rules are specific and spelled out: http://holacracy.org/constitution
Whether it works or not is another question, but at least it's different. Then, sure, it's not a silver bullet: http://youtu.be/gltN3NuY5dc
Interestingly, the distinction between for- and non-profit is less relevant with Holacracy. The bottom line is effectively the (explicit, written-down) purpose of the organization. More on that here: http://holacracy.org/blog/for-profit-non-profit-for-purpose
I'm interested in whether it's working. From what I've seen, it is. Perfect? Of course not. The be all and end all of running a business? No, you still need to do work. But it's a much better framework to do so that anything else I've seen. Many people seem to share this opinion, too, and it seems to help them to their work better (and enjoy it more). That's pretty cool in my book, I don't need to convince the world that it's right for everybody. If you find the same benefits with another system, or a similar one from thousands years ago, who cares, run with it.
It doesn't even make that much sense to compare them -- these techniques are bolt-ons - more or less useful practices to make do with the challenges inherent to a conventional structure. On the contrary, Holacracy is a new meta-structure for how power is distributed, how decision-making is distributed, with different channels available to effect changes - a new "social operating system", really.
In my experience, having my manager use techniques like SCARF to "better reward me" is nowhere near as powerful and empowering as having no manager to solve my problems, because there is a system that allows me to address them myself.
-Olivier Compagne
That said, it's cool to see folks copying it :)
On the contrary, Holacracy has processes that push for clarity. It distinguishes people and their roles, and provides forums (e.g., clear meeting processes) to address misalignments and conflicts between roles, in service of the company's purpose. It's well explained in this 3-min video http://youtu.be/9U_XDin5tjI
Disclosure; I work with HolacracyOne. Hope that clarifies the difference a bit