Cheers
Marci

Thanks for taking the time to write a response. I haven’t posted some of the acidic comments left by others that don’t show they’ve actually read the piece. I will also not address your own barbs, as upon re-reading I can see I cast about many of my own. I interpret yours’ in the spirit that an Indian sage once interpreted the Gita’s instruction as ‘to get ajana from a jani:’ in this world of thorns it can take another thorn to remove it for clear Ground to be revealed.

I am surprised, honoured and embarrassed that you have obviously spent so much time writing this, taking the trouble to inform me more fully about Holacracy. I was unaware that Krishna would bring my rantings to your, and wider, attention as he has; but being public on my blog, yes, I should have known better.

I would like to acknowledge, as I noted in the post, I have very much shot from the hip, being only ‘minimally informed,’ and thus ‘misinformed,’ risking being seen as an ‘ignoramus…that can easily be batted away.’ (Great batting btw;) I did not write it with the due consideration that I might give a detailed review, or formal submission to an organisation. I realise now perhaps I should have, or otherwise held my tongue. As you will note, I have written it largely addressed in style to my foresight and integral colleagues; those interested in organisational development, and likely to take me to task with matching banter. Your response is far more considered, thank you.

Ironically on the very same day I was smarting at stones being thrown at my own efforts within a different organisation, I can see I threw a rock of my own at the sincere and concerted efforts of others. I love Life’s sense of humour at times like these. I’d like to recognise the huge effort you and others are making to introduce Holacracy; generating momentum and coherency towards change is never easy, and requiring even greater subtlety and deftness within the context of your organisation: a real and enviable achievement I can aspire to in my work.

It is important for me, however to re-emphasise the overall positive assessment I believe I gave Holacracy and your organisation’s ability to implement and benefit from it. In addition, and I should have included this in the original post, I do think Holacracy could be ideally suited to your organisation’s stage of development, and that the organisation highly likely to make ‘best use’ of Holacracy. May your efforts become a shining successful example of Holacracy’s potential!

I sincerely wish the best for your efforts and the continued growth, expansion and achievement that your organisation is sure to achieve. I do hope in future to learn more from you and them, and begin making a more constructive contribution to your collective successes. I also look forward to benefiting from your implementation of Holacracy, and learning more about it.

And while I regret and apologise that my carelessness has caused you to spend so much time on this, I do hope in the final analysis, that your efforts at explanation have provided your organisation with an even better understanding of, comfort with, and resolve to implement Holacracy with ‘clear eyes and full Hearts…’

Warm regards, Chris.

Thanks for your cautionary blog post on Holacracy, where you acknowledge “I’ve only read the publicly available information on the founder’s website – I haven’t spoken to him, or other certified consultants in the method, nor have I attended a workshop or accessed other more ‘in-depth’ resources.”

I read your post in depth because I really wanted to get the benefit of your perspective. I appreciated Krishna sending it to us, because I didn’t want to overlook anything we should investigate further before making our decision. What I discovered is that you’re misinformed about Holacracy, as well as minimally informed. If you’d like to take a next step in your encounter with the system, there’s a free one-hour webinar introducing Holacracy on July 21. After the webinar, Brian Robertson stays on the line to receive questions. This would be a great opportunity for you to kick the Holacracy tires as hard as possible.

Many of us — particularly Saniel — know what it’s like to receive a spirited challenge of our work from someone who lacks personal experience with it and hasn’t done due diligence. In politics, this is known as straw man tactics: misrepresenting an issue (or person), then apparently refuting it (or them), while fanning emotional flames along the way. Sarah Palin specializes in it, and our interaction with your post could be seen as another example from the other end of the political spectrum. With all due respect, and sincere appreciation for your eagerness to support our work, you haven’t read or experienced enough to understand Holacracy. Since your writing is being offered as a truly viable critique, and some people may be interpreting it as such, I’d like to speak to that, and address a few of its misconceptions.

No one needs to believe up front that Holacracy is definitely the right approach for our organization forever. We now have the opportunity, through an externally-funded, professionally guided implementation process, to give Holacracy a shot. In the spirit of dynamic steering, we simply need to determine if, by trying it out for the next six months, massive irreparable harm would be done to our organization that we couldn’t undo. Since Holacracy builds in the freedom to revisit our decisions, we can always return to our current ways of working together, or devise another approach, as needed. Regardless, we’d have taken a next step toward developing our organization, we’d have learned a lot in the process, and it wouldn’t have taken any cash from the organization. Within that context, is there a reason this is not workable, at least for now?

Delaying this decision while researching alternatives, while seemingly prudent, can also serve to justify our fears and perpetuate analysis-paralysis while trying to figure out the “right” decision up front. We have reason to believe that adopting Holacracy would be a step forward. How long do we give ourselves to investigate what’s out there? Could Holacracy be a good enough choice to try to adapt to fit our needs? As indeed we would with any approach we used?

Either/or thinking: Either we adopt Holacracy OR we get our organization more stable and functional — with the latter seen as top priority, and Holacracy construed as an add-on at some convenient future point — completely misses the point. Holacracy is an organizational operating system that focuses on getting the organization’s work done. It offers a clearly defined decision-making process with effective meetings, and it fully incorporates business fundamentals while also structuring in new capacities that enable the people in the organization to fill their roles more effectively.

Holacracy is an open framework, not a silver bullet that answers all problems. As an operating system, it has room to include many complementary tools and models, including anything else that’s not formally part of Holacracy. It’s a framework in which all sorts of other practices can and should be used (and is clearly presented as such during trainings). So if we want to institute other good practices, we certainly can. Holacracy doesn’t limit our freedom to do so, and it will help shift our current patterns.

Holacracy doesn’t require buy-in, openness, or internal shifts before starting the practice. The process doesn’t require people to change. Holacracy is not about trying to change people; it’s about trying to create a space that supports people to function. Once you bring it in and practice it well, the process generates the buy-in and shifts necessary.

Okay, on to some specifics of your post:

“Largely just a rebadging of the agile software project management method”
Though agile and lean were among multiple influences, Holacracy is not a rebranding of a software project management method, and it entails far more than project management. Unlike agile, it offers a governance system and an organizational structure. Agile is a category of methodologies in the software industry, each with its own systems and processes, all collectively aligned with agile methods — not a single method.

“and as such is primarily focused on efficiency”
This is a misunderstanding of both agile methods and Holacracy. Agile methods push in quite the opposite direction — the primary focus is on effectiveness in customer value creation, over efficiency. This focus shows up in both the Agile Alliance core value statement and the Agile Alliance core principle statement.

“no praxis for accessing and accounting for the ‘depth’ dimension”
Please see Brian’s blog post “The Limits of Leadership Development”.
This comment reflects another common misperception of Holacracy, as well as the conventional fusion of an organization with its people. From this perspective, the primary way to develop an organization is to develop (transform) its people. Holacracy, in contrast, is an organizational structure for the organization, as an entity, to focus on doing its work. The practice bakes in later developmental capacities and embraces people across the spectrum, so that everyone can show up and contribute their best, as they are. Through holding a healthy space for the organization, and focusing on its work in the world, Holacracy invites human development to the extent needed, thereby reducing the need for it, as well as the focus on it. That being said, all sorts of individual depth practices can be used in a Holacratic framework, as desired.

“Very similar to what already is practiced by healthy, progressive organisations all across the world.”
Yes, many practices are looking at the same paradigm shift. Holacracy doesn’t claim credit for being the brilliant pioneer channeling this new leap of consciousness into the world. What’s unique about Holacracy is its creative blend of so much else that is out there, and the synergy that emerges when these practices and principles are synthesized in the context of each other.

“The founder does not pay any respect to the large bodies of knowledge these practices have emerged from.”
Please listen to Brian’s dialogue “The Roots of Holacracy”, posted on HolacracyOne’s website, for a discussion of this very topic. Yes, a better job could be done pointing out the influences; however, they have posted this dialog, and I don’t believe it’s their intention to deny or mask those contributions in any way. I have also frequently heard Brian make references to many streams of influence.

“Big ‘borrowed’ themes”
Actually, not one of the five things you mention were influences on Holacracy. The one that comes closest is purpose-based values driven management. However, Brian just wrote a blog post about how Holacracy is not about that: “The Limits of Company Values”.

“Re-interpreting the past (generating hindsight) and exploring future potentials (generating foresight)”
Holacracy incorporates both past reflection and future projection. Dynamic steering is about grounding in the present without denying projections into the future. Though Holacracy, like any operating system or tool, can be used poorly, your comments point to potential pitfalls that are not inherent in the system.

“How the individual can learn, internally, to make the shifts required to first appreciate, then be actively open to trying it out (rather than passively open – ie saying yes, but being closed in reality), and finally through practice discovering how they actually understand Holacracy”
One of the beauties of Holacracy is that it doesn’t require up-front buy-in, openness, or internal shifts for it to be effective — it leads to these through the practice. Passively open is okay and closed is fine. Holacracy is not something you “learn”, then “apply” — it is something you “do”, and the doing generates the shifts. The process will work regardless of what states people are in. Holacracy is not about trying to change people; it’s about creating a space that helps people function. You don’t need openness to try it out in order to bring it in. Once you bring it in, with a competent facilitator to hold the process, the process takes care of itself. It’s not necessary to help the individual learn in advance to make the needed shifts, and you don’t need an understanding of what the process is doing. Holacracy doesn’t focus on individual development as the gateway to organizational change. It’s about finding a different point of leverage, through a different paradigm. Again, see blog post “The Limits of Leadership Development”, as well as “Beyond Serving Stakeholders”.

Hope this is helpful, and thanks again for your support.

Best wishes,
Deborah