At a time when the pyramidal management system inspired by Taylor and Ford is perceived as rigid and culturally obsolete, new forms of work organization are gradually emerging.¹ Self-management models are an important part of these new organizational structures.

Self-management models are an important part of these new organizational structures. To understand why organizations are adopting these self-management models, we need to understand what managers want most from their organizations: reliability and adaptability. All organizations want to achieve, to some extent, both reliability and adaptability. But one usually overshadows the other. Indeed, too much reliability creates rigidity and can make companies insensitive to changing markets. Conversely, if companies place too much emphasis on adaptability, they risk becoming dispersed and losing sight of their raison d'être. In an attempt to reconcile reliability and adaptability, holacracy, the best-known and most widely practiced model of self-management, helps to achieve this balance.²

But what is holacracy?

According to Bernard Marie Chiquet, founder of IGI Partners (the company that imports holacracy to Europe from the USA), holacracy is a practice that promotes responsibility and cooperation in the service of the company's raison d'être. In this practice, there is no longer a manager as such, but everyone is invited to manage themselves, and is expected to demonstrate leadership. This is not to say that there is no structure. Holacracy refers to a “holarchic structure”. Here's a diagram illustrating how this structure works:

The super circle

Also known as the company's general circle, it represents the company as a whole. In particular, it is made up of the 1ᵉʳ and 2ᵉ link of each sub-circle.

The sub-circle

The sub-circle represents autonomous teams where each person has a role and working towards the same goal. Sub-circles are formed or dissolved according to needs of the organization.

Role

The role is a set of responsibilities within the organization. Roles can be can be created, modified or cancelled. People usually have more than one role in several circles. There are operational roles and structural structural roles. The various structural roles, which are less concerned with operational tasks, must guarantee the smooth running of the team (= sub circle), both within it and within the organization. The two main roles are structural roles: - 1ᵉʳ link: in each sub-circle, one person takes on the role of coach, similar to the leader or manager in a pyramid system. This person's responsibilities include assigning roles, managing finances and priorities, coaching team members, and maintaining a good atmosphere. These tasks take up around 10% of his or her time, the rest being devoted to other roles depending on his or her skills. - 2ᵉ link: is responsible for escalating a tension from a sub-circle to the super circle if it exceeds the authority of the sub-circle in question.

Also, in order to be better organized and more efficient than in a so-called classical structure, the “holarchic structure” relies on three types of meetings :

• Strategic meetings to define the company's direction.
• Governance meetings, the purpose of which is to work on the organization without addressing operational issues.
• Tactical Meetings, whose purpose is to work within the organization, i.e. on concrete (operational) subjects to be developed.

During these sessions, strict order, rules and roles must be respected. Each participant is invited to speak in turn and submit ideas or tensions. The aim is to find solutions collectively, and to help the organization evolve thanks to everyone's involvement.

Holacracy: a change of cultural paradigm

Adopting holacracy is more than just an organizational transformation; it's also a profound change in corporate culture. One of the main challenges for companies is to abandon the culture of hierarchy and control, deeply rooted in traditional systems. Employees, accustomed to rigid structures with clear chains of command, must learn to operate autonomously and embrace individual responsibility.

This requires not only a new way of thinking, but also a new way of working together. In a holarchical structure, employees must take on a certain form of individual leadership, while collaborating more closely with their colleagues. Collaborative decision-making, which is at the heart of holacracy, may take longer and require more patience than in a pyramidal model. However, this approach improves transparency, individual responsibility and alignment within teams. Each employee is encouraged to take the initiative and become more involved in decision-making processes. This creates an environment where autonomy is not only encouraged, but valued. Holacracy also encourages more open and regular communication between team members, reducing information silos and strengthening team spirit.

Another key aspect is that companies must be prepared to reinvent their reward and recognition systems. In a holacratic organization, traditional promotions are no longer relevant, as there are no hierarchical levels to climb. This overturns the traditional model of career progression. Employees need to be motivated by other forms of recognition, such as broader responsibilities, the opportunity to contribute to a variety of projects, or regular feedback mechanisms. For this system to work well, employees must also have a clear vision of their objectives and understand how their work contributes to the organization's raison d'être.

The limits of holacracy

Although holacracy has been adopted by many companies, some, such as Amazon subsidiary Zappos, have either abandoned it or never embraced it. Indeed, this structure also has its limitations, such as rigid meeting rules, restrictions on freedom of expression, and questionable effectiveness. These various points influenced Zappos' decision to retract.⁴

Regarding roles, the Zappos example shows that an employee has around 7.4 roles for an average of 3.47 responsibilities per role. That's a total of more than 25 responsibilities per employee. This multiplicity of roles complicates the organization of work, recruitment, and the definition of salaries, as it becomes difficult to assess a fair wage. In fact, as the employees compile the various roles, establishing a salary in relation to what is being done on the market becomes virtually impossible.

Another delicate point in adopting holacracy is the need for greater discipline. In a model where individuals have greater autonomy and responsibility, it can be easy for some to lose sight of the company's priorities. What's more, not all personalities adapt easily to this level of self-management. Some employees may experience increased stress when faced with the need to take on more initiative and responsibility without traditional supervision. It can also create a lack of clarity in task allocation, especially in larger or more complex organizations, where communication and coordination are essential.

Despite its image as an innovative management system, holacracy is not suitable for all businesses. It can take years to adopt, and many employees may have to leave. For large companies, partial adoption is recommended. On the other hand, for start-ups and SMEs with a high level of organizational adaptability and a relatively small size, holacracy appears to be an appropriate solution. In fact, many of them are early adopters.⁵

Holacracy and conflict management

Managing tensions is a key element in a holarchic organization. Tensions, according to holacracy, are defined as gaps between the organization's current state and what an ideal situation might be. These tensions are often seen as opportunities for improvement. However, managing tensions can sometimes become a source of frustration. If they are not dealt with quickly or effectively, they can lead to conflict between team members.

The role of the facilitator is therefore crucial in ensuring that tensions are resolved constructively. In a traditional structure, conflicts are often managed top-down, with a manager or supervisor playing the role of arbiter. In holacracy, conflict resolution is more horizontal, with teams often having to find their own solutions to problems that arise. This requires a high level of maturity and communication skills on the part of team members. For this to work, the organization needs to put in place well-defined conflict resolution processes and clear frameworks for escalating tensions.

The long-term benefits of holacracy

Despite the challenges it presents, holacracy offers many potential long-term benefits. By adopting a more flexible governance model, companies can improve their resilience in the face of market changes. Increased team autonomy encourages innovation, as ideas can emerge more quickly and be implemented without going through a long validation chain. This enhanced responsiveness is essential in sectors where change is rapid and adaptability is a key success factor.

One of the main advantages of holacracy is that it encourages better use of employees' skills. Indeed, employees are no longer restricted to a single defined role or position; they can contribute to different projects and circles according to their talents and interests. This also prevents certain talents from going untapped, or valuable skills from being under-utilized. This approach can lead to greater job satisfaction and higher talent retention, as employees feel they have greater freedom to develop their skills and broaden their scope within the organization.¹⁰

Finally, holacracy enables greater organizational agility. Companies that adopt this model are often more responsive to market changes, as they are not held back by rigid structures. Decisions are taken faster and closer to the operational teams, enabling strategies to be adjusted in real time. This flexibility can be a major competitive advantage, especially in dynamic markets where the ability to react quickly to change is crucial.

Holacracy and innovation: a winning synergy

One of the great strengths of holacracy lies in its ability to foster innovation. By removing hierarchical barriers, employees feel freer to put forward new ideas, even if they're off the beaten track. This ability to generate new ideas is essential in a world where markets evolve rapidly and companies must constantly reinvent themselves. Holacracy also encourages calculated risk-taking, as each circle can experiment on a small scale without fear of serious consequences for the organization as a whole.

What's more, holacracy enables ideas to be tested more quickly. Each circle can make decisions independently and implement prototypes or pilot projects without waiting for approval from top management. This reduces time-to-market and keeps the company competitive. This is particularly beneficial for startups or fast-growing companies, where the ability to innovate and adapt quickly is crucial to survival and prosperity.

Holacracy also encourages a diversity of viewpoints, allowing everyone, whatever their role or status, to contribute to collective thinking. This diversity is a powerful driver of innovation, as it enables a variety of ideas to be brought together and more creative solutions to the challenges facing the company to be explored. It also helps to break down the tendency towards one-track thinking, by encouraging the inclusion of voices from all levels and giving everyone the opportunity to play an active part in creating value for the company.

In conclusion, holacracy is an innovative management model that challenges conventional structures. However, its application raises challenges, particularly in the complex management of roles and organization. Adapted to agile companies such as start-ups and certain SMEs, it is not a universal solution, especially for large structures. Each company must therefore carefully assess its specific needs before adopting holacracy, preparing appropriate adjustments for a successful transition.

Would you like to test holacracy in your company? WEDO can help you with our comprehensive governance module dedicated to this management system. To find out more, ask one of our specialists for a free demo.

Governance with WEDO

References

• GROSJEAN, VINCENT, LEÏCHLÉ, JACQUES and THÉVENY, LAURENT, 2016. New forms of work organization: opportunities or illusions? . 2016. Vol. 245, pp. 6-9.
• BERNSTEIN, Ethan, BUNCH, John, CANNER, Niko and LEE, Michael, 2016. Beyond the Holacracy Hype. Harvard Business Review. August 2016. pp. 38-49.
• CHIQUET, Bernard Marie and APPERT, Étienne, 2013. A new managerial technology, holacracy. Goussonville : IGI partners. ISBN 978-2-9545641-1-1. 658.002 22
• CASTILLO, Amanda, 2018. Holacratie, l'utopie qui se passe de chef. Le Temps [online]. October 5, 2018. [Accessed April 17, 2022]. Available from: https://www.letemps.ch/economie/holacratie-lutopie-se-passe-chef
• BERNSTEIN, Ethan, BUNCH, John, CANNER, Niko and LEE, Michael, 2016. Beyond the Holacracy Hype. Harvard Business Review. August 2016. pp. 38-49.