And here is holacracy being whispered about everywhere. Nothing new and yet some interesting things. Frustration, irritation, moments of pleasure. Before addressing certain points in detail (for future articles?), here is an overall impression.

Paradox

Holacracy doesn’t seem to be made of anything new. It’s just an assembly of known things. And yet a small air of innovation floats, a kind of balance. As if we had materialized a breakthrough. Of course on one side the old warriors howl about marketing hijacking (and I must admit I howl with the wolves), on the other the defenders of holacracy say we shouldn’t look for where it comes from and register the trademark to make – I imagine – the maximum amount of dough. Come on, we’ll get through this.

Organization and energy flow

Holacracy is a way of organizing one’s organization (sic) as well as its permanent mutation. It’s therefore a way of managing energy flows whatever they may be: decision-making, actions, group dynamics, etc. This is my analysis, it’s not presented this way by holacracy, at least not in a frank way. Yet in my opinion the essential idea of an organization is not to want to manage its energy flows (and everything is energy), but to define a framework that allows them to express themselves, to circulate, to evolve at their best. Now this is indeed what holacracy aims for: define a strict framework, strict rules that don’t encroach on the energy itself; what I am, what I want, what I decide, all this remains my domain. Holacracy is a way – among others – of establishing a framework strict enough so that we can rely on it, flexible enough so it evolves and adapts continually to the fluctuating influx of energy. This is where holacracy seems to have succeeded in a challenge.

An assembly of known things

Allow me however to be bitter for five minutes. If holacracy is not called holocracy, I suspect it’s for a story of registered trademark and money.

On the other hand holacracy is an assembly of known things because the clarification circles, reaction circles, first link, second link are things inherited from sociocracy, which had decidedly too difficult a name to bear. Unfortunately this inspiration brings with it certain bad aspects: in my experience the sociocracy facilitator possesses an unbalancing power. He leads the debates too often, he doesn’t accompany them. I find this concern with holacracy.

All these appeals to the organic aspects of an organization (bis repetita) is salutary (hence the holon). I am its first defender. Too bad not to call upon the sources that have carried these ideas for a long time. In France, Henri Laborit in the seventies brandished these ideas of organism thermodynamics adapted to organizations (In “la nouvelle grille” for example).

Agility is also undoubtedly part of the pantheon of holacracy: retrospective, syntax (“more than”/“over”) and manifesto values are found there, why not say it. Like a musical movement it’s interesting to know where it comes from, why it’s there, what constitutes it, we understand and enjoy it much better.

This exacerbated clarification of roles, rules, objectives are moreover nothing other than what others have been proclaiming like Jane McGonigal or Dan Mezick, who themselves bounced off other ideas. I’m not trying to know who’s right, I believe that an invention is never an individual matter: several simultaneously have the same ideas, there are those who have the idea, and those who know how to use it, and those who know how to implement it, etc. I would have liked a more open movement, more transparent in its sources and whose stated intention (or what seems to be) is not necessarily or in any case not solely to make money from it.

Some pitfalls to avoid starting badly

The airplane allegory: Robertson in his book or in his conferences (I was able to see him in Prague at the end of 2015), uses this personal story as a trigger. He allegedly almost died in a private flight from not having taken into account a small indicator light in his plane. His underlying idea is that all indicator lights are important and that the only way to apprehend them all is to liberate their autonomy. That the slightest small gauge blocked in the company by lack of autonomy can lead it to drama. This allegory doesn’t resonate with me. It diminishes another reference I strongly believe in, that of systemics, the “see the whole” of Lean. He could have turned his metaphor this way and yet it’s the opposite idea that emerges. In short, I remain hungry, his story flops (not the plane fortunately).

The false comic book effect

The comic book from a consulting firm French, what a good idea (IGIS Partner in France). Really. And yet it confuses certain aspects. When you read Robertson’s book, and despite its countless calls to buy his services or his products, it is clear, much clearer. So be careful not to stop at the comic book, it’s a beautiful entrance door. It leads to the vestibule (and probably to many misunderstandings).

Zappos: a bad reference

Ah Zappos, the reference! Too bad, the organization’s transformation is led by an iron fist that crushes the recalcitrant. Difficult to have an iron fist when we talk about constant evolution, constant evolution rhymes rather in my eyes with invitation, experimentation. Better to evacuate Zappos from holacracy references, because holacracy or not doesn’t matter, it’s the way of doing things that leaves perplexed.

An accomplished, innovative assembly

{.image .left width=“400”}

Holacracy nonetheless remains an assembly that seems accomplished to me. Which I hope to talk to you about in future articles. For now I would highlight four key concepts in my eyes, that holacracy has been able to carry:

• Make change a continuous dynamic, enact it. And speak rather of evolution (and not change, the word frightens), continuous evolution.
• Clarify down to roles, it depersonalizes, clarifies. Perhaps not talk however like robots… The application to the extreme of roles that I haven’t tried yet fascinates me as much as frightens me (in a certain framework we must not address each other, converse, dialogue with our first names, but by addressing each other by our role names), whatever the objective I want to remain human.
• Separate roles and souls: establish a clear framework, let human energies pour into it without controlling them. This is the challenge of complexity: true autonomy within the framework.
• Systematically recall the purpose, call upon meaning.

Sociocracy, Holacracy, Liberated Company?

{.image .left width=“400”}

I’m not going to try to make significant differences. The sociocracy, whose true first movements were Dutch could be found in the experiences of liberated companies that we find described in recent works like reinventing organisations (skip the first 150 pages). Holacracy descends from sociocracy as Man descends from the ape, and is a variation, a declination of liberated companies. A particular assembly that moreover I don’t suggest you apply as is. Like all these approaches to manage complex environments, they possess their paradoxes: apply as is or let a contextualized approach emerge, which is difficult to resolve, but in any case they should definitely not be considered as recipes.

Other articles to come therefore on the subject: notably our beginning of application within beNext and, frankly, in accordance with FUN value let’s say we are rather set to do Honolulucratie. See you very soon but if you really want to know right away a little more about holacracy, read Géraldine’s articles on this subject.

Don’t hesitate to contact me (for the risotto recipe?).

Feedback

Dragos

*It seems to me that you equate liberated company (how I hate this name) and holacracy. For me these are two different things, as Agile is different from Scrum. EL, for me is a philosophy, a set of principles and values, a way of conceiving the world, when holacracy is a framework that allows implementing an EL, one way among others. It’s not a solution in itself, it’s a framework (rigid, like Scrum) that gives rules but also space to seek the right solution, the one that is adapted to the context. The rigidity of the framework, as always, is there to guarantee that we won’t transgress the principles and values we hold dear. As always, the shu ha ri scale also applies here. Better to start by respecting the framework, to then go beyond. This is the case of what happened at Medium (good article on the subject https://medium.com/the-story/management-and-organization-at-medium-2228cc9d93e9#.1n75tjfu2)*

Fabrice

Hi Pablo, I really appreciate your article and your vision of the thing. Having been in it for 2 years, and developing a tool for it (holaSpirit). By the way, I see that the holon wasn’t a bad idea. I can’t wait for this movement to mutate so it’s no longer so trademarked, which to this day disappoints me most of all. After what I find unfortunate is that holacracy focuses too much on what should be and not on what is. We don’t review what is going well, which I find regrettable. In short, I can’t wait to meet up with you for a drink so we can discuss it face to face !

Paul

*Comment about the article: “Hellocratie Holocratie Holacratie Honolulucratie” You talk about the facilitator’s unbalancing power. And you are right: in a group that retains the stigmata of pyramidal organizations - with a “boss” who “directs” - the facilitator can receive that power. This unbalancing power depends, in my opinion, both on the facilitator’s maturity and on that of the group - and on its ability to “let do”. It’s the role of the feedback round - in sociocracy - or governance meetings - in holacracy: a moment when we express how we experience the incarnation of the framework and how we can evolve it in service of the collective. I also can’t help but see how much sociocracy or holacracy practices

• and especially their spirit - can be useful for supporting the self-organized groups that are Agile teams. Where there’s most to take is when we want to go to larger scales and coordinate Agile teams. The “double link” principle seems to me entirely appropriate to ensure quality coordination and feedback between teams. Finally, on the copyrights and the business that derives from them… I dream of Open Source methods such as Sociocracy 3.0 which purports to be a clever mix of Sociocracy, Holacracy and Agility (http://sociocracy30.org/). Thanks again for your posts that shake the brain and allow us to move forward.*