Holacracy

Holacracy Plot Summary

Introduction

In today's rapidly changing business environment, traditional hierarchical management structures increasingly struggle to keep pace with complexity and change. Organizations face mounting challenges in adapting quickly enough to market shifts, technological disruptions, and evolving workforce expectations. The question becomes: how can we design organizations that harness the intelligence and capability of everyone within them, rather than bottlenecking decisions through management chains? The theory of Holacracy represents a radical reimagining of organizational structure and power dynamics. This comprehensive framework replaces conventional management hierarchies with a distributed authority system based on transparent rules and processes. At its core, Holacracy addresses fundamental questions about how authority is allocated, how decisions are made, how organizational tensions are processed into meaningful change, and how an organization can become truly evolutionary in its design. By separating people from the roles they fill and distributing authority to those roles rather than individuals, Holacracy offers a pathway to more agile, purpose-driven organizations where everyone can lead within their domain of responsibility.

Chapter 1: The Evolution from Hierarchies to Dynamic Systems

The traditional organizational model we've inherited from the industrial age operates on a "predict and control" principle—it seeks stability and success through up-front planning, centralized control, and preventing deviation. This approach worked reasonably well in the relatively simple and static environments of the early 1900s, enabling new levels of coordination and production. However, in today's postindustrial landscape characterized by increasing complexity, enhanced transparency, shorter time horizons, and economic instability, these conventional structures quickly become obsolete. The fundamental limitation of traditional organizations lies in how they process information and respond to change. Consider an analogy to an airplane's instrument panel: in a conventional organization, when one instrument (perhaps a frontline employee) detects a problem, their awareness often gets "outvoted" by the consensus of other instruments or the pilot (management). The organization effectively ignores its own sensors, losing critical information that could guide necessary adjustments. This happens because traditional structures centralize decision-making authority, creating bottlenecks where important perspectives are frequently lost or dismissed. Holacracy addresses this limitation by distributing sensing and responding capabilities throughout the organization. It recognizes that each person within the organization perceives unique "tensions"—gaps between current reality and potential—based on their particular role and perspective. Rather than filtering these tensions through management layers, Holacracy establishes processes that allow anyone to process their tensions into meaningful organizational change. The evolutionary quality of Holacracy lies in its ability to continuously adapt organizational structures based on real-time feedback from those doing the work. Like biological evolution, it creates designs through an iterative process of differentiation, selection, and amplification within the company's boundaries. This "bringing evolution inside" enables organizations to adapt more quickly to changing circumstances without requiring heroic leadership or perfect prediction. Unlike bolt-on improvement techniques that often conflict with existing power structures, Holacracy represents a complete operating system upgrade—a fundamental shift in how authority is distributed and decisions are made. This creates a truly evolutionary organism capable of sensing and adapting to its environment through the collective intelligence of all its members.

Chapter 2: Distributed Authority and the Constitution

The core shift in Holacracy involves moving authority from people to a process—specifically, a written constitution that defines clear "rules of the game" for organizational governance. Unlike traditional organizations where power flows from the top down through management chains, in Holacracy, power is vested in a legislative process defined by the constitution. When an organization adopts Holacracy, its leaders heroically cede their power to this constitutional structure, which then becomes the ultimate authority. This constitutional approach fundamentally alters the psychological dynamics within the organization. The parent-child relationship between managers and employees is replaced by adult-to-adult interactions between autonomous role-fillers. Managers no longer shoulder the burden of solving everyone's problems, and workers gain both the authority and responsibility to address tensions within their domains. This shift often comes as both a challenge and a relief to those in leadership positions, who find themselves liberated from the constant pressure of being the heroic problem-solver. The constitution establishes a governance process that distributes authority throughout the organization and creates clear expectations about who can make which decisions and within what limits. This clarity eliminates much of the ambiguity and politics that plague conventional organizations. When everyone knows exactly what authority they hold and what constraints they must honor, they can act decisively without seeking unnecessary consensus or approval. The genius of this approach lies in how it balances autonomy with alignment. Individual roles gain substantial freedom to act within their domains, while the governance process ensures their actions remain coherent with the organization's broader purpose and constraints. This creates what might be called "bounded autonomy"—freedom within a framework that maintains organizational integrity. When tensions arise between roles or when existing structures no longer serve their purpose, these issues can be addressed through regular governance meetings where anyone can propose changes to roles, responsibilities, or policies. The resulting governance records then serve as the organization's "operating DNA," clearly documenting authorities and expectations that everyone can reference in their daily work. This constitutional distribution of authority creates an organization where power no longer depends on personal relationships or political savvy but is instead transparently allocated through a fair process accessible to all. The result is an empowered workforce that can respond rapidly to challenges and opportunities without waiting for permission from above.

Chapter 3: Circle Structure and Role Clarity

Holacracy structures organizations not as management hierarchies but as "holarchies"—systems of nested circles where each circle is both a whole entity with autonomy and a part of a larger whole. This structure mirrors patterns found throughout nature, from atoms combining into molecules to cells organizing into organs. Each entity in the holarchy maintains its own internal self-organization while also functioning within a broader context. The fundamental building block of this structure is not the individual person but the role. A role represents a function the organization needs performed and consists of three elements: a purpose to express, possibly domains to control, and accountabilities to enact. By clearly defining these elements, Holacracy creates explicit expectations about what each role is responsible for and what authority it holds. This clarity eliminates much of the ambiguity and frustration that occurs when people have different implicit expectations of each other. One of Holacracy's most powerful aspects is how it differentiates between people and the roles they fill—what practitioners call "role and soul." In conventional organizations, individuals become fused with their job titles, leading to confusion between personal conflicts and functional tensions between roles. Holacracy breaks this fusion by treating roles as organizational entities that humans simply "energize." Most people fill multiple roles across different circles, allowing for more fluid and efficient allocation of human capacity. Circles in Holacracy are connected through special linking roles that ensure alignment across boundaries. The "Lead Link" carries the perspective of the broader circle into a sub-circle, while the "Rep Link" carries feedback from the sub-circle back to the broader context. These links create bidirectional channels of communication and tension-processing throughout the organization without relying on traditional management chains. The structure remains highly dynamic, evolving through governance meetings where roles and expectations are continually refined based on tensions sensed during actual work. This means the organization's structure increasingly reflects what works best in practice rather than what was predicted to work in theory. Through this ongoing process, Holacracy helps align what organizational theorist Elliott Jaques called the "formal structure" (official roles and accountabilities), the "extant structure" (how work actually happens), and the "requisite structure" (what would work best given the organization's purpose and context). By clarifying roles, authorities, and expectations, Holacracy dramatically reduces the interpersonal friction and political maneuvering that consumes so much energy in conventional organizations. People know exactly what they're accountable for, what they can count on others for, and how decisions will be made—freeing them to focus on productive work rather than navigating ambiguity.

Chapter 4: Governance and Operations Processes

Holacracy distinguishes between two fundamental processes in organizational life: governance and operations. Governance addresses how we work—the patterns, structures, and authorities that shape our activities. Operations concerns getting work done—the actual projects, decisions, and actions taken within that governance framework. Both processes have their own meeting formats and rules designed to efficiently process tensions into either structural changes or tactical outcomes. Governance meetings follow a precise format called the Integrative Decision-Making Process. After a check-in round and agenda building, each agenda item represents a specific tension someone has sensed. The process moves through distinct steps: the proposer presents their proposal; others ask clarifying questions; everyone shares reactions; the proposer may amend their proposal; objections are raised and tested; and finally, integration occurs to resolve valid objections. This highly structured process prevents the domination of any single perspective while ensuring every relevant concern is addressed. The structure may initially feel constraining, but it serves an important purpose—like the lines on a highway that initially restrict movement but ultimately enable faster, safer travel. The facilitator's role is critical here, not to support people personally but to protect the process itself, which in turn protects everyone's ability to process tensions effectively. This often requires cutting people off when they speak out of turn or testing objections for validity—actions that may seem ruthless but are essential to maintaining the integrity of the governance space. Operations, meanwhile, involves using the structure defined in governance to get work done efficiently. Tactical meetings provide a streamlined format for coordinating team activities, sharing updates, and resolving operational blocks. These meetings typically include a review of recurring actions (checklist items), metrics, and project updates, followed by rapid processing of specific agenda items. The focus remains on getting each agenda item owner what they need to move forward, not on building consensus or making everyone happy. A distinctive feature of Holacracy's operational approach is its rejection of artificial deadlines and "what-by-when" commitments. Instead, role fillers commit to consciously tracking their work, continually reassessing priorities, and working on whatever makes most sense in the moment given everything they know. This creates more authentic prioritization and eliminates the psychological burden of looming deadlines that may no longer reflect organizational realities. The combination of clear governance and streamlined operations dramatically reduces the time spent in meetings while increasing their effectiveness. Organizations practicing Holacracy often report being able to process dozens of agenda items in less than an hour—a pace that would be impossible in conventional meeting formats. This efficiency comes from the clear differentiation between governance and operations, and from the disciplined focus on processing one tension at a time.

Chapter 5: Strategy and Dynamic Control

Traditional strategic planning often rests on the illusion that we can predict the future with reasonable accuracy. Organizations typically create detailed multi-year plans, committing substantial resources to paths that may become obsolete before they're even implemented. Holacracy challenges this predict-and-control mindset, adopting instead what might be called "dynamic steering"—making constant small adjustments based on current reality rather than trying to follow a predetermined path. This approach can be understood through the metaphor of riding a bicycle. When cycling, you don't hold the handlebars rigidly at a calculated angle with your eyes closed, hoping you've predicted the perfect path. Instead, you constantly take in feedback about your current position and make tiny adjustments moment by moment. You maintain a general sense of direction while allowing the specific path to emerge naturally based on what you encounter. Similarly, Holacracy encourages organizations to stay present to current reality and adapt continuously rather than rigidly adhering to plans that may no longer serve their purpose. In place of detailed strategic plans, Holacracy uses a different tool for creating alignment: strategies expressed as simple heuristics or rules of thumb. These typically take the form "Emphasize X, even over Y," where both X and Y represent positive values that may sometimes conflict. For example, a company might adopt a strategy like "Emphasize documenting and aligning to standards, even over developing and co-creating novelty." This doesn't suggest that innovation is bad, but rather that standardization is the current priority given the organization's context and purpose. These strategies help guide countless daily decisions without restricting autonomy or requiring constant oversight. They're designed to be temporary—useful in a particular context until the organization evolves to a point where a different emphasis makes more sense. Every six months or so, circles typically hold special strategy meetings to review their context and determine what new navigational aids might be helpful going forward. Holacracy's approach to strategy aligns with modern evolutionary theory, which views evolution as a general algorithm for innovation through trial and error. By focusing on rapid sensing and responding rather than perfect prediction, organizations can tap into the same creative power that has produced the exquisite designs we see throughout nature. The governance process becomes the means for "testing" new variations in organizational design, while day-to-day operations determine which variations are "fit" enough to keep. This evolutionary quality makes Holacracy-powered organizations remarkably resilient in the face of complexity and change. Rather than betting everything on a single strategic vision that might prove wrong, they maintain the capacity to pivot quickly as new information emerges. Like skilled martial artists, they stay present, grounded, and responsive—ready to move in whatever direction serves their purpose in the moment.

Chapter 6: Implementing Holacracy in Organizations

Adopting Holacracy represents a significant transformation that requires commitment and patience. Unlike many management methodologies, Holacracy cannot be implemented piecemeal—it requires adopting the entire constitutional framework to realize its benefits. The reason is simple: attempting to adopt only certain elements while maintaining the existing power structure creates an inherent contradiction. The question "Who decides which pieces to adopt?" inevitably leads back to the traditional authority hierarchy. The implementation process begins with a formal adoption of the Holacracy Constitution by whoever currently holds power in the organization. This person—typically the CEO—signs a declaration ceding their authority to the constitutional process. While they retain the right to "unadopt" Holacracy later, they agree not to override specific constitutional rules in the meantime. This formal transfer of power is essential for creating the psychological safety needed for the new system to function. Following adoption, the organization must establish systems for maintaining governance records, define an initial structure of circles and roles, hold initial governance meetings to elect key roles, and schedule regular tactical and governance meetings. During this phase, having experienced facilitation—either from external coaches or well-trained internal facilitators—proves invaluable in navigating the learning curve and ensuring proper application of the constitutional rules. Beyond these fundamental elements, organizations must also address various organizational functions not directly covered by the constitution. Holacracy provides the operating system but not all the "apps" an organization needs—systems for compensation, hiring, performance management, and budgeting must still be defined. Some traditional approaches to these functions may work within Holacracy, but many will create tensions that require developing new approaches more aligned with distributed authority. Several common pitfalls can derail Holacracy implementations. The "Reluctant-to-Let-Go Leader" scenario occurs when those in power formally adopt Holacracy but continue acting according to old patterns, creating visible dissonance between words and actions. The "Uncooperative Middle" emerges when mid-level managers resist the shift, perhaps because they've mastered the old political environment and see little benefit in changing. The "Stopping-Short Syndrome" happens when organizations implement the basic meeting formats but fail to update core human systems like compensation and firing decisions, allowing the shadow of the old power structure to persist. Successful implementations typically combine clear commitment from leadership with adequate support and training. Organizations must recognize that Holacracy represents a profound shift that takes time to master—like learning any complex skill, the early stages often feel awkward and inefficient before proficiency develops. The payoff comes as the organization gradually develops greater responsiveness, clearer decision-making, and more engaged participation from everyone involved.

Chapter 7: The Experience of Living Holacracy

The lived experience of working in a Holacracy-powered organization differs dramatically from conventional environments. For leaders accustomed to being the heroic problem-solver, the shift can initially feel disorienting—like getting into a car without a familiar steering wheel. Many report a temporary sense of diminished efficiency as authority distributes to people who may not have their level of experience or capability. Yet this discomfort typically gives way to profound relief as they discover they no longer need to carry the entire organization on their shoulders. Former executives often describe being liberated from the constant pressure to be perfect, to have all the answers, and to be responsible for everyone else's problems. They can now fully express their perspectives and drive their projects forward without worrying about disempowering others, because no one is vulnerable to their abuse of power. The constitutional process protects everyone's autonomy while maintaining necessary alignment. As one CEO described it: "I arrived disheveled, tired, and almost late to a governance meeting yesterday... As I watched the meeting unfold, it was clear my presence wasn't important to the process... The responsibility to 'carry' the meeting was totally nonexistent for me." For those previously lower in the hierarchy, Holacracy eliminates the victim stance that often develops in parent-child organizational dynamics. With real authority comes real responsibility—there's no longer a "them" to blame for organizational problems, just autonomous role-fillers with the power to process tensions into meaningful change. This can feel uncomfortable at first, as people realize they can no longer hide behind powerlessness or wait for someone else to solve their problems. Perhaps most significantly, Holacracy creates a healthy separation between different domains of organizational life that are often unhealthily fused. It distinguishes between personal space (individual values and identity), tribe space (shared culture and human connection), role space (work done through organizational roles), and organizational space (governance of those roles). By clearly differentiating these domains, Holacracy protects each from inappropriate intrusion by the others. This differentiation leads to a paradoxical outcome: by not focusing on improving people or culture directly, Holacracy often creates conditions where personal development and healthy culture emerge more naturally. As David Allen, creator of Getting Things Done, observed: "As we've distributed accountability down and through the organization, I've had much less of my attention on the culture. In an operating system that's dysfunctional, you need to focus on things like values in order to make that somewhat tolerable, but if we're all willing to pay attention to the higher purpose... the culture just emerges." The resulting experience is one of liberation—from politics, from unclear expectations, from waiting for permission, and from the need to navigate bureaucracy. People know exactly what authority they hold and what constraints they must honor. They can take decisive action without seeking unnecessary consensus, while remaining aligned with the organization's broader purpose. Rather than a parent-child dynamic, relationships become peer-to-peer partnerships between autonomous adults working together in service of something larger than themselves.

Summary

Holacracy represents a fundamental reimagining of organizational power—shifting from a system where authority flows from the top down through management chains to one where authority is constitutionally distributed to roles rather than people. This transformation creates organizations capable of processing tensions into meaningful change through every person who senses them, resulting in unprecedented adaptability and evolutionary capacity. The world continues to accelerate toward greater complexity and interconnection, making traditional predict-and-control approaches increasingly untenable. By embedding governance throughout the organization and honoring the autonomy of each role while maintaining coherence of the whole, Holacracy offers a pathway to organizations that can evolve as quickly as their environments demand. Whether through Holacracy or other similar systems, this evolution toward distributed authority and dynamic governance represents not merely a management trend but a fundamental shift in how humans organize to accomplish meaningful work together—one that may ultimately prove as significant as the transition from monarchy to democracy in our political systems.

About Author

Loading...

Brian J. Robertson

Read more