5 ms·

Holocracy, as I've seen it defined, is supposed to be a non-hierarchical way of organizing a company. That is, teams are supposed to self-organize and independe

Holocracy, as I've seen it defined, is supposed to be a non-hierarchical way of organizing a company. That is, teams are supposed to self-organize and independently do what is best for the business as a whole. Another prominent software company that practices holocracy is Valve Software, and their employee handbook [1] is one that I've seen mentioned by multiple people as a good implementation of holocracy. The problem that holocracy is supposed to solve is that in a modern business environment, market conditions shift too quickly to allow management to have the sole responsibility for making decisions. Having self-organizing teams that take responsibility for advancing business goals, and allowing employees to shift between teams without getting permission from management first ("open allocation") allows the company to develop an internal "marketplace of ideas" which ensures that good ideas win out and bad ideas are killed before they consume too many resources. Now does it work in practice? I would say that it's too soon to tell. Very few organizations have wholly embraced holocracy. Arguably the only one that's truly embraced the practice is Valve. While the idea of a non-hierarchical organization sounds great in theory, we must also remember that status hierarchies are one of the few things that are common to every human civilization. As a PM colleague of mine put it succinctly, "Middle school lunch rooms are holocracies too." I would say that a holocracy can work, so long as the corporate culture supports it... just like every other management strategy.

bambax 12y ago
Disclaimer: I have no idea what holacracy is or how it works, this is the first time I heard the term. But this: > market conditions shift too quickly to allow management to have the sole responsibility for making decisions rubs me the wrong way. Making decisions and bearing the responsibility and accepting the consequences of past decisions, is the sole task -- indeed the sole purpose of management. If they cease making decisions then what good are they? Now, if "holacracy" means that there is no management anymore, it may be fine; however - the tone and the very existence of the memo seem to tell otherwise; there is something extremely funny about "mandatory self-organization" - salaried positions are (to me) a little like a deal with the devil: you give up freedom, in exchange for peace of mind and not having to make too many decisions. This holacracy thing sounds like a trick by the devil in order to not hold his end of the bargain.
- jaggederest 12y ago
  > what good are they? People might reply that most management is, in fact, not good, or at least contributes no better than random chance. Be careful about questioning the need for management, that way lies anarchy - literally! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation I don't believe Holacracy is striving for anything like that. I think it's yet another faddish management theory with buzzwords to keep people - who would otherwise contemplate the uselessness of their existence - busy at large bureaucratic companies, much like the tides of reorganization and the rigors of standards compliance and change management do.
- robmccoll 12y ago
  A person or group playing the role of management would likely still exist. The point is that it arises organically through natural leadership within the organically self-assembling structure. In fact accepting the consequences is much more real to this version of management in that the effects of poor decisions are immediate. In a self-organizing structure, their power can be swiftly removed by the masses. Meanwhile poor management in more rigid structure can survive much longer and is frequently untouchable.
  - blumkvist 12y ago
    >In a self-organizing structure, their power can be swiftly removed by the masses. Meanwhile poor management in more rigid structure can survive much longer and is frequently untouchable. Meanwhile in a self-organizing structure you can get the shaft, because a good decision did not turn out too well. I also don't see how this system solves the "politics" problem. I actually think it makes it even worse. People will premeditate and ploy much more, if a consensus is the only thing standing between them and power. As e result many bad decisions will be made in the name of compromise and favors. "A camel is a horse, designed by a committee."
kirsebaer 12y ago
> status hierarchies are one of the few things that are common to every human civilization Supposedly hunter-gatherer societies are fairly non-heirarchical (hunter-gatherer bands not tribal farmer/herders). They use humor to take down anyone who tries to be to bossy, let children and everyone else do what they like, but also strongly value sharing. Peter Gray at Boston College has written a lot about this, for instance: https://libcom.org/history/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways-peter-gray https://libcom.org/history/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-t...
- blumkvist 12y ago
  That article breaks the "rhetoric devices per paragraph" scale. I read the article and find it interesting, but I can't help but wonder why the author(s) felt the need to craft their text in such a meticulous fashion.

bambax 12y ago

Disclaimer: I have no idea what holacracy is or how it works, this is the first time I heard the term. But this: > market conditions shift too quickly to allow management to have the sole responsibility for making decisions rubs me the wrong way. Making decisions and bearing the responsibility and accepting the consequences of past decisions, is the sole task -- indeed the sole purpose of management. If they cease making decisions then what good are they? Now, if "holacracy" means that there is no management anymore, it may be fine; however - the tone and the very existence of the memo seem to tell otherwise; there is something extremely funny about "mandatory self-organization" - salaried positions are (to me) a little like a deal with the devil: you give up freedom, in exchange for peace of mind and not having to make too many decisions. This holacracy thing sounds like a trick by the devil in order to not hold his end of the bargain.

jaggederest 12y ago
> what good are they? People might reply that most management is, in fact, not good, or at least contributes no better than random chance. Be careful about questioning the need for management, that way lies anarchy - literally! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation I don't believe Holacracy is striving for anything like that. I think it's yet another faddish management theory with buzzwords to keep people - who would otherwise contemplate the uselessness of their existence - busy at large bureaucratic companies, much like the tides of reorganization and the rigors of standards compliance and change management do.
robmccoll 12y ago
A person or group playing the role of management would likely still exist. The point is that it arises organically through natural leadership within the organically self-assembling structure. In fact accepting the consequences is much more real to this version of management in that the effects of poor decisions are immediate. In a self-organizing structure, their power can be swiftly removed by the masses. Meanwhile poor management in more rigid structure can survive much longer and is frequently untouchable.
- blumkvist 12y ago
  >In a self-organizing structure, their power can be swiftly removed by the masses. Meanwhile poor management in more rigid structure can survive much longer and is frequently untouchable. Meanwhile in a self-organizing structure you can get the shaft, because a good decision did not turn out too well. I also don't see how this system solves the "politics" problem. I actually think it makes it even worse. People will premeditate and ploy much more, if a consensus is the only thing standing between them and power. As e result many bad decisions will be made in the name of compromise and favors. "A camel is a horse, designed by a committee."

kirsebaer 12y ago

> status hierarchies are one of the few things that are common to every human civilization Supposedly hunter-gatherer societies are fairly non-heirarchical (hunter-gatherer bands not tribal farmer/herders). They use humor to take down anyone who tries to be to bossy, let children and everyone else do what they like, but also strongly value sharing. Peter Gray at Boston College has written a lot about this, for instance: https://libcom.org/history/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways-peter-gray https://libcom.org/history/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-t...

blumkvist 12y ago
That article breaks the "rhetoric devices per paragraph" scale. I read the article and find it interesting, but I can't help but wonder why the author(s) felt the need to craft their text in such a meticulous fashion.