3 ms·

If I'm understanding the linked article correctly, she wasn't claiming holacracy guts management, she was claiming that it introduces a power vacuum. And from w

by mpyne 13y ago

If I'm understanding the linked article correctly, she wasn't claiming holacracy guts management, she was claiming that it introduces a power vacuum. And from what I can tell in that pretty picture you provide, she's probably actually right. E.g. who sets the "strategic direction" for the company? Who guides the unending governance meetings to decide who the managers will be that day? Who decides which spouses get to work on company property without pay, and which employees are allowed to date other employees? The way those things get resolved will show you who's really in charge.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> E.g. who sets the "strategic direction" for the company? The circle whose focus is strategic direction. > Who guides the unending governance meetings to decide who the managers will be that day? Unending governance meetings and "decide who the managers will be that day" both seem like signs of a circle with a poor governance process (probably, one that is trying to force things into a non-holarchic structure.)
- mpyne 13y ago
  > > E.g. who sets the "strategic direction" for the company? > The circle whose focus is strategic direction. Sweet. Now we know who's actually in charge, it's whoever is a member of that circle. That wasn't so hard.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    The idea that having focus on long-range, broad-scope problems is intimately tied to authority is a typical assumption of traditional heirarchies, but there's no reason it has to be true in holacracies.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      It has nothing to do with whether you call the direction "strategic", "next quarter" or "tactical". If you have the authority to set the direction at all you're the one (or few) in charge. We prefer these types of direction to be long-term if only to avoid having a business do its own random walk through the markets, but don't confuse scope with authority.

by mpyne 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> E.g. who sets the "strategic direction" for the company? The circle whose focus is strategic direction. > Who guides the unending governance meetings to decide who the managers will be that day? Unending governance meetings and "decide who the managers will be that day" both seem like signs of a circle with a poor governance process (probably, one that is trying to force things into a non-holarchic structure.)

mpyne 13y ago
> > E.g. who sets the "strategic direction" for the company? > The circle whose focus is strategic direction. Sweet. Now we know who's actually in charge, it's whoever is a member of that circle. That wasn't so hard.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The idea that having focus on long-range, broad-scope problems is intimately tied to authority is a typical assumption of traditional heirarchies, but there's no reason it has to be true in holacracies.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    It has nothing to do with whether you call the direction "strategic", "next quarter" or "tactical". If you have the authority to set the direction at all you're the one (or few) in charge. We prefer these types of direction to be long-term if only to avoid having a business do its own random walk through the markets, but don't confuse scope with authority.