What do you think?
Rate this book
Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World
Holacracy is a revolutionary management system that redefines management and turns everyone into a leader.
Holacracy distributes authority and decision-making throughout an organization, and defines people not by hierarchy and titles, but by roles. Holacracy creates organizations that are fast, agile, and that succeed by pursuing their purpose, not following a dated and artificial plan.
This isn't anarchy – it's quite the opposite. When you start to follow Holacracy, you learn to create new structures and ways of making decisions that empower the people who know the most about the work you your frontline colleagues.
Some of the many champions of Holacracy include Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos.com (author of the #1 New York Times bestseller Delivering Happiness ), Evan Williams (co-founder of Blogger, Twitter, and Medium), and David Allen.
Holacracy distributes authority and decision-making throughout an organization, and defines people not by hierarchy and titles, but by roles. Holacracy creates organizations that are fast, agile, and that succeed by pursuing their purpose, not following a dated and artificial plan.
This isn't anarchy – it's quite the opposite. When you start to follow Holacracy, you learn to create new structures and ways of making decisions that empower the people who know the most about the work you your frontline colleagues.
Some of the many champions of Holacracy include Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos.com (author of the #1 New York Times bestseller Delivering Happiness ), Evan Williams (co-founder of Blogger, Twitter, and Medium), and David Allen.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published June 2, 2015
383 people are currently reading
2697 people want to read
About the author
Brian J. Robertson
6 books28 followersBrian J. Robertson created Holacracy and founded HolacracyOne, the organization that is training people and companies all over the world in this new system. Robertson had previously launched a successful software company, where he first introduced the principles that would become Holacracy, making him not just a management theorist, but someone who has successfully implemented a holacracy-powered organization. He lives in Philadelphia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 130 reviews
August 26, 2016
Holacracy is a system for structuring a business through "peer-to-peer self-organization and distributed control," in which "we all get to be adults together."
okay, so 1) Holacracy doesn't stand up under Marxian analysis. Power is not actually being distributed when workers are still selling their labor and the value of their efforts is taken as profit by the business owner.
2) Holacracy is designed for the perfect rational human, without personality, relationships, or ego. It is deliberately designed to create, "a healthy separation" between the personal/interpersonal, and the organization. Robertson considers this "a deeper honoring of the personal," by keeping it entirely out of the workplace. I mean, sure, props for being open and honest about the neoliberal wish to erase the messy realities of human behavior and human needs. The Holacracy is only concerned with the relationship between roles. It is literally designed to make people into perfect replaceable cogs.
Under Holacracy, how two people might communicate is "as unregulated as possible." In this way "Holcracy allows the organization to functionally optimally however we humans decide to relate to one another personally . . . it keeps human values out of the organizational space." (italics in the original).
You know what we get when human interaction is unregulated and only the roles in a business matter? We get Fox News and The Chicago PD. This is what you get when only results count.
"The organization" is now an entity in its own right - and specifically, it's a capitalist entity. It's not an organization of people. Humans are merely another resource to be juiced for capital. This isn't anything new, but celebrating it like this is extraordinary. And Robertson seriously is celebrating.
"When the David Allen Company was going through this transition [to Holacracy], many of the people within were struggling with the shift to a more impersonal approach. They'd worked hard for years to build a very close, warm, intimate culture, and you could feel it the minute you walked into their building. It seemed like a great place to work, where people trusted each other, listened to each other, and shared a deep connection. In the process of installing Holacracy, we were deliberately tearing out that carefully woven fabric of relationships from the way people did their work, and many people found the change quite jarring. But Holacracy wasn't removing all of their hard-won connectedness and trust, just moving it into a different space and liberating it from organizational matters." (p. 199)
Yeah, the employees could be as trusting and empathic as they liked, as long as it was out of business hours.
How frustrating that humans are humans 24/7. In a perfect Neoliberal world we would turn that off while we were at our desks, and only switch it back on in time to buy consumer goods and binge watch Netflix to hide our existential sorrow. Holacracy offers a plan to minimize the evidence of humanity in the workplace. All hail Holacracy.
okay, so 1) Holacracy doesn't stand up under Marxian analysis. Power is not actually being distributed when workers are still selling their labor and the value of their efforts is taken as profit by the business owner.
2) Holacracy is designed for the perfect rational human, without personality, relationships, or ego. It is deliberately designed to create, "a healthy separation" between the personal/interpersonal, and the organization. Robertson considers this "a deeper honoring of the personal," by keeping it entirely out of the workplace. I mean, sure, props for being open and honest about the neoliberal wish to erase the messy realities of human behavior and human needs. The Holacracy is only concerned with the relationship between roles. It is literally designed to make people into perfect replaceable cogs.
Under Holacracy, how two people might communicate is "as unregulated as possible." In this way "Holcracy allows the organization to functionally optimally however we humans decide to relate to one another personally . . . it keeps human values out of the organizational space." (italics in the original).
You know what we get when human interaction is unregulated and only the roles in a business matter? We get Fox News and The Chicago PD. This is what you get when only results count.
"The organization" is now an entity in its own right - and specifically, it's a capitalist entity. It's not an organization of people. Humans are merely another resource to be juiced for capital. This isn't anything new, but celebrating it like this is extraordinary. And Robertson seriously is celebrating.
"When the David Allen Company was going through this transition [to Holacracy], many of the people within were struggling with the shift to a more impersonal approach. They'd worked hard for years to build a very close, warm, intimate culture, and you could feel it the minute you walked into their building. It seemed like a great place to work, where people trusted each other, listened to each other, and shared a deep connection. In the process of installing Holacracy, we were deliberately tearing out that carefully woven fabric of relationships from the way people did their work, and many people found the change quite jarring. But Holacracy wasn't removing all of their hard-won connectedness and trust, just moving it into a different space and liberating it from organizational matters." (p. 199)
Yeah, the employees could be as trusting and empathic as they liked, as long as it was out of business hours.
How frustrating that humans are humans 24/7. In a perfect Neoliberal world we would turn that off while we were at our desks, and only switch it back on in time to buy consumer goods and binge watch Netflix to hide our existential sorrow. Holacracy offers a plan to minimize the evidence of humanity in the workplace. All hail Holacracy.
February 6, 2018
It is well written and persuasive. It is also a dangerous management system that can undermine a company, as it did with mine when we tried to implement it. It nearly brought us down.
My takeaway is that there is no system that can replace solid leadership. If you're the CEO, you need to own it and get to work. It's super tempting to abdicate responsibility but it is simply the wrong path to take.
Yes, people make mistakes, but applying a straightjacket for decision making process is not the answer. The answer is reflection, continuous improvement, clear roles, and autonomy.
Yes, signals might get lost, but the answer is not allowing all the noise to go through the same process. The answer is to cultivate better signalling and better filters to reduce the noise.
Yes, we sometimes get lost in endless debate, but the answer is not to force decisions. The answer is to take ownership as the leader to make sensible decisions.
Yes, people need authority in their role. But the answer is not to formalize this to a degree that even governments would find cumbersome. The answer is to define the role, create space within that role for authority and accountability, and to keep monitoring performance.
Instead of this book, consider the following:
- High Output Management by Andrew Grove
- Turn The Ship Around by L. david Marquet
- Extreme Ownership by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin
Good luck! :)
My takeaway is that there is no system that can replace solid leadership. If you're the CEO, you need to own it and get to work. It's super tempting to abdicate responsibility but it is simply the wrong path to take.
Yes, people make mistakes, but applying a straightjacket for decision making process is not the answer. The answer is reflection, continuous improvement, clear roles, and autonomy.
Yes, signals might get lost, but the answer is not allowing all the noise to go through the same process. The answer is to cultivate better signalling and better filters to reduce the noise.
Yes, we sometimes get lost in endless debate, but the answer is not to force decisions. The answer is to take ownership as the leader to make sensible decisions.
Yes, people need authority in their role. But the answer is not to formalize this to a degree that even governments would find cumbersome. The answer is to define the role, create space within that role for authority and accountability, and to keep monitoring performance.
Instead of this book, consider the following:
- High Output Management by Andrew Grove
- Turn The Ship Around by L. david Marquet
- Extreme Ownership by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin
Good luck! :)
June 14, 2015
A process-heavy straightjacket for organizations that can't figure out how to delegate the rules of communication.
October 16, 2015
Holacracy® is a governance system and a registered trademark owned by HolacracyOne. The word Holacracy is very easy to confuse with holocracy (with an o), which means universal democracy. Robertson's aim with the system is to "harness the tremendous sensing power of the human consciousness available to our organizations" (p. 7). This harnessing is done by "a set of core rules" (p. 12). The Holacracy constitution acts as "the core rule book for the organization" (p. 21). Robertson hopes that his readers will approach the book "not as a set of ideas, principles, or philosophies, but as a guide to a new practice" (pp. 13—14).
Brian Robertson's book is very readable and informative. I share Robertson's view on the problems associated with "predict and control" (p. 7) and his interest in finding "better ways to work together" (p. 12), but I can also see problems with heavily rule based approaches. I think there's a fundamental difference between following rules and honoring agreements. Rules are externally-focused, while agreements are internal because they are directly linked to will. Agreements, not rules, are the glue that ties commitment to results.
Brian Robertson focuses on practices in his book, while my interest primarily is on principles. This doesn't mean that I think practices are unimportant. I share, however, Ralph Waldo Emerson's view that "The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble." To paraphrase Emerson, the man who focus on rules and processes, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble. I also think that processes need to grow, or evolve, from their specific context. Each situation is unique in some way, small or large.
For Brian Robertson, it's very important to "prevent others from claiming power over you" (p. 21). This is done by establishing a "core authority structure" and "a system that empowers everyone" (p. 21). The power is in the "process, which is defined in detail" (p. 21). For me, "harnessing true self-organization and agility throughout an enterprise" (p. 20) is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Harnessing self-organization might actually kill it. I suspect people might decide to withdraw their engagement if they realize that they are harnessed for the benefit of the organization only.
Brian Robertson defines a "circle", not as a group of people, but as a "group of roles" (p. 48). The "basic circle structure" consists of nested circles (p. 47). Robertson calls the hierarchy of "nested circles" a "holarchy" (p. 46). Arthur Koestler defines a "holon" as "a whole that is a part of a larger whole" and a "holarchy" as "the connection between holons" (p. 38). I'd challenge that a hierarchy of nested circles really is a holarchy. A person certainly is a holon, but I doubt that a role, in itself, is a holon. What inherent "wholeness" does a role have if people are needed to "energize" the role and "enact" its accountabilities (p. 43)? Having said that, I do think that a group of people can become and act as a holon under certain circumstances. Maybe Bohmian Dialogue, the U-process, and Open Space Technology are examples when such circumstances can occur?
The nested circles in the basic circle structure are "linked via two special roles", the Lead and Rep Links (p. 49). The idea behind this interlinking of circles comes from the Sociocratic Circle Organization Method (Sociocracy), which was invented by Gerard Endenburg in the 1970s. Brian Robertson tried to patent the idea (Pub. No. US2009/006113 A1, Fig. 4), but subsequently abandoned the patent application. Other ideas in the patent application similar to Sociocracy are the decision-making (Fig. 6), governance meeting (Fig. 8), and role election (Fig. 9) processes. A significant difference between Sociocracy and Holacracy is that all roles are elected in Sociocracy, while only the Rep Link, Facilitator, and Secretary are elected roles in Holacracy (p. 57). Holacracy is also more prescriptive. The responsibility of people in a Holacracy is to act as role fillers. This is a "sacred duty" and "an act of love and service, not for your own sake, but nonetheless of your own free will" (p. 85). Holacracy "empowers you to use your own best judgment to energize your role and do your work" (p. 97). I cannot help but wonder why people can't empower themselves? Why do you need the permission of a system to use your own best judgment in your work?
In addition to the "basic responsibility as role fillers", people also have specific duties in "offering transparency", "processing requests", and "accepting certain rules of prioritization" (p. 92). Transparency and effectiveness are important in Sociocracy too. However, equivalence doesn't seem to be as important in Holacracy as in Sociocracy. In Holacracy, "the process is all that matters, and the process will take care of everything else" (p. 111). The rules in Holacracy "create a sacred space that frees each of us to act as sensors for the organization, without drama getting in the way" (p. 110). "As long as the process is honored, you really don't care how anyone feels — at least not in your role as facilitator." (p. 110) I ask myself, aren't feelings important if people are going to be able to act as sensors? The answer Brian Robertson gives is that "it's about processing tensions for the sake of our roles, which ultimately serve the organization's purpose" (p. 113). "This keeps the organization from being overly influenced by individual feelings and opinions that are not relevant to the work …" (p. 116). He assures that "No one's voice is silenced, yet egos aren't allowed to dominate." (p. 117) Well, really? Yes, says Robertson. Holacracy seeks to "process every tension and be truly integrative; it's also a recipe for [not] letting ego, fear, or groupthink hinder the organization's purpose" (p. 125). "Playing politics loses its utility …" (p. 126). I think that the politics of identifying issues and building support that is strong enough to result in action will always be there. It's great if the politics can be channeled through Holacracy. If not, it will go underground.
One of Brian Robertson's "favorite metaphors" used to illustrate the "dynamic steering" and "constant weaving" is riding a bicycle (p. 129). Interestingly, this is the same metaphor which Gerard Endenburg uses to illustrate the circle process in Sociocracy. (References: G. Endenburg, Sociocracy: The organization of decision-making, pp. 16—18; and G. Endenburg, Sociocracy: As Social Design, pp. 67—71). Robertson explains that "Dynamic steering means constant adjustment in light of real feedback, which makes for a more organic and emergent path." (p. 129) Dynamic steering done well "enables the organization and those within it to stay present and act decisively on whatever arises day to day …" (p. 130). The focus is on "quickly reaching a workable decision and then let reality inform the next step" (p. 131). As in Sociocracy, "any decision can be revisited at any time" (p. 131). I think the dynamic steering is a major strength of both Holacracy and Sociocracy.
Holacracy defines the organization as "an entity that exists beyond the people, with its own purpose to enact and with work to do beyond just serving the people doing that work" (p. 148). This is also why Holacracy isn't a governance process "of the people, by the people, for the people", but "of the organization, through the people, for the purpose" (p. 34). Holacracy differentiates "between the human community and the organizational entity" (p. 149) and between the "role and soul" (pp. 42—46). To summarize, "Holacracy's systems and processes are about continually helping the organization find its own unique identity and structure to do its work in the world, while protecting it from human agendas, egos, and politics." (p. 199). Still, the organization needs human beings to energize and enact all its roles.
Holacracy is "a big shift" (p. 145). Brian Robertson emphasizes that "you can't really practice Holacracy by adopting only part of the rules", but "you can take on all of the rules in only part of the company" (p. 147). Holacracy isn't for everyone. Robertson has "seen organizations where it just didn't stick" (p. 167). The three most common scenarios he has identified are "The Reluctant-to-Let-Go Leader", "The Uncooperative Middle", and "The Stopping-Short Syndrome" (p. 167). The last scenario is "perhaps the most insidious" (p. 170) because "slowly and almost imperceptibly, the change starts to fade" (p. 170). At best the organization ends up with "a surface level improvement" only (p. 171). I don't think this is a scenario unique to Holacracy. Regardless, Robertson claims that "a majority" of the Holacracy implementations he has witnessed seems to result in "lasting transformation" (p. 173).
Brian Robertson acknowledges at the end of the book that he is grateful to his mother for her great job in catalyzing the development of his "strong and healthy ego" (p. 211). Robertson writes that he has a "solid sense of self throughout" (p. 211). Unless he hadn't had such a strong and healthy ego, he "wouldn't have needed a system capable of protecting others from it" (p. 212). To me, this sounds contradictory. I can understand if a person with a weak ego seeks protection in rules, but not why others would need protection from a person with a solid self and healthy ego. Maybe there are some deeply human needs behind Brian Robertson's birthing of Holacracy? For one reason or another, Robertson perceives a need for a strong rule based system. It's up to you to decide if you need such a system too! If so, it's called Holacracy®.
Brian Robertson's book is very readable and informative. I share Robertson's view on the problems associated with "predict and control" (p. 7) and his interest in finding "better ways to work together" (p. 12), but I can also see problems with heavily rule based approaches. I think there's a fundamental difference between following rules and honoring agreements. Rules are externally-focused, while agreements are internal because they are directly linked to will. Agreements, not rules, are the glue that ties commitment to results.
Brian Robertson focuses on practices in his book, while my interest primarily is on principles. This doesn't mean that I think practices are unimportant. I share, however, Ralph Waldo Emerson's view that "The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble." To paraphrase Emerson, the man who focus on rules and processes, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble. I also think that processes need to grow, or evolve, from their specific context. Each situation is unique in some way, small or large.
For Brian Robertson, it's very important to "prevent others from claiming power over you" (p. 21). This is done by establishing a "core authority structure" and "a system that empowers everyone" (p. 21). The power is in the "process, which is defined in detail" (p. 21). For me, "harnessing true self-organization and agility throughout an enterprise" (p. 20) is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Harnessing self-organization might actually kill it. I suspect people might decide to withdraw their engagement if they realize that they are harnessed for the benefit of the organization only.
Brian Robertson defines a "circle", not as a group of people, but as a "group of roles" (p. 48). The "basic circle structure" consists of nested circles (p. 47). Robertson calls the hierarchy of "nested circles" a "holarchy" (p. 46). Arthur Koestler defines a "holon" as "a whole that is a part of a larger whole" and a "holarchy" as "the connection between holons" (p. 38). I'd challenge that a hierarchy of nested circles really is a holarchy. A person certainly is a holon, but I doubt that a role, in itself, is a holon. What inherent "wholeness" does a role have if people are needed to "energize" the role and "enact" its accountabilities (p. 43)? Having said that, I do think that a group of people can become and act as a holon under certain circumstances. Maybe Bohmian Dialogue, the U-process, and Open Space Technology are examples when such circumstances can occur?
The nested circles in the basic circle structure are "linked via two special roles", the Lead and Rep Links (p. 49). The idea behind this interlinking of circles comes from the Sociocratic Circle Organization Method (Sociocracy), which was invented by Gerard Endenburg in the 1970s. Brian Robertson tried to patent the idea (Pub. No. US2009/006113 A1, Fig. 4), but subsequently abandoned the patent application. Other ideas in the patent application similar to Sociocracy are the decision-making (Fig. 6), governance meeting (Fig. 8), and role election (Fig. 9) processes. A significant difference between Sociocracy and Holacracy is that all roles are elected in Sociocracy, while only the Rep Link, Facilitator, and Secretary are elected roles in Holacracy (p. 57). Holacracy is also more prescriptive. The responsibility of people in a Holacracy is to act as role fillers. This is a "sacred duty" and "an act of love and service, not for your own sake, but nonetheless of your own free will" (p. 85). Holacracy "empowers you to use your own best judgment to energize your role and do your work" (p. 97). I cannot help but wonder why people can't empower themselves? Why do you need the permission of a system to use your own best judgment in your work?
In addition to the "basic responsibility as role fillers", people also have specific duties in "offering transparency", "processing requests", and "accepting certain rules of prioritization" (p. 92). Transparency and effectiveness are important in Sociocracy too. However, equivalence doesn't seem to be as important in Holacracy as in Sociocracy. In Holacracy, "the process is all that matters, and the process will take care of everything else" (p. 111). The rules in Holacracy "create a sacred space that frees each of us to act as sensors for the organization, without drama getting in the way" (p. 110). "As long as the process is honored, you really don't care how anyone feels — at least not in your role as facilitator." (p. 110) I ask myself, aren't feelings important if people are going to be able to act as sensors? The answer Brian Robertson gives is that "it's about processing tensions for the sake of our roles, which ultimately serve the organization's purpose" (p. 113). "This keeps the organization from being overly influenced by individual feelings and opinions that are not relevant to the work …" (p. 116). He assures that "No one's voice is silenced, yet egos aren't allowed to dominate." (p. 117) Well, really? Yes, says Robertson. Holacracy seeks to "process every tension and be truly integrative; it's also a recipe for [not] letting ego, fear, or groupthink hinder the organization's purpose" (p. 125). "Playing politics loses its utility …" (p. 126). I think that the politics of identifying issues and building support that is strong enough to result in action will always be there. It's great if the politics can be channeled through Holacracy. If not, it will go underground.
One of Brian Robertson's "favorite metaphors" used to illustrate the "dynamic steering" and "constant weaving" is riding a bicycle (p. 129). Interestingly, this is the same metaphor which Gerard Endenburg uses to illustrate the circle process in Sociocracy. (References: G. Endenburg, Sociocracy: The organization of decision-making, pp. 16—18; and G. Endenburg, Sociocracy: As Social Design, pp. 67—71). Robertson explains that "Dynamic steering means constant adjustment in light of real feedback, which makes for a more organic and emergent path." (p. 129) Dynamic steering done well "enables the organization and those within it to stay present and act decisively on whatever arises day to day …" (p. 130). The focus is on "quickly reaching a workable decision and then let reality inform the next step" (p. 131). As in Sociocracy, "any decision can be revisited at any time" (p. 131). I think the dynamic steering is a major strength of both Holacracy and Sociocracy.
Holacracy defines the organization as "an entity that exists beyond the people, with its own purpose to enact and with work to do beyond just serving the people doing that work" (p. 148). This is also why Holacracy isn't a governance process "of the people, by the people, for the people", but "of the organization, through the people, for the purpose" (p. 34). Holacracy differentiates "between the human community and the organizational entity" (p. 149) and between the "role and soul" (pp. 42—46). To summarize, "Holacracy's systems and processes are about continually helping the organization find its own unique identity and structure to do its work in the world, while protecting it from human agendas, egos, and politics." (p. 199). Still, the organization needs human beings to energize and enact all its roles.
Holacracy is "a big shift" (p. 145). Brian Robertson emphasizes that "you can't really practice Holacracy by adopting only part of the rules", but "you can take on all of the rules in only part of the company" (p. 147). Holacracy isn't for everyone. Robertson has "seen organizations where it just didn't stick" (p. 167). The three most common scenarios he has identified are "The Reluctant-to-Let-Go Leader", "The Uncooperative Middle", and "The Stopping-Short Syndrome" (p. 167). The last scenario is "perhaps the most insidious" (p. 170) because "slowly and almost imperceptibly, the change starts to fade" (p. 170). At best the organization ends up with "a surface level improvement" only (p. 171). I don't think this is a scenario unique to Holacracy. Regardless, Robertson claims that "a majority" of the Holacracy implementations he has witnessed seems to result in "lasting transformation" (p. 173).
Brian Robertson acknowledges at the end of the book that he is grateful to his mother for her great job in catalyzing the development of his "strong and healthy ego" (p. 211). Robertson writes that he has a "solid sense of self throughout" (p. 211). Unless he hadn't had such a strong and healthy ego, he "wouldn't have needed a system capable of protecting others from it" (p. 212). To me, this sounds contradictory. I can understand if a person with a weak ego seeks protection in rules, but not why others would need protection from a person with a solid self and healthy ego. Maybe there are some deeply human needs behind Brian Robertson's birthing of Holacracy? For one reason or another, Robertson perceives a need for a strong rule based system. It's up to you to decide if you need such a system too! If so, it's called Holacracy®.
July 22, 2015
Before I start - I don't think I'm able to properly review this book with reviewing the concept of Holocracy itself. It's technically possible, but it doesn't make (IMHO) much sense.
The overall concept of Holocracy (to replace inefficient & troublesome mgmt hierarchies with system of nested circles governed by process itself) sounds very crazy, but actually the 'city metaphore' made me give it a deeper thought. Anyway even if I agree with many statements, even if I've made plenty of bookmarks & got inspired to write at least few blog posts, I think that YES, Holocracy may work but only if you start it from scratch of within a really small company. And author did literally nothing to convince me I'm wrong - he's quite good in presenting the pros of Holocracy, but there's barely any mention of potential risks that can happen:
* decision paralysis within governance process
* gaps in processes in context of contradicting positions of circle's members
* potential slowness of decision making progress ("VETOers")
etc.
What did I like most?
* short idea about dealing with compensation in Holocracy-powered org (sadly, there should be many more ideas about adapting traditional enterprise mechanics into "flat world", but they are not here)
* some VERY good points about empowerment in different work scenarios
Anyway, I think that if you're interested in management, you should definitely read this book. Not necessarily because it's that good or because everybody will be doing Holocracy by next Tuesday - but just to make your own opinion on this interesting topic.
The overall concept of Holocracy (to replace inefficient & troublesome mgmt hierarchies with system of nested circles governed by process itself) sounds very crazy, but actually the 'city metaphore' made me give it a deeper thought. Anyway even if I agree with many statements, even if I've made plenty of bookmarks & got inspired to write at least few blog posts, I think that YES, Holocracy may work but only if you start it from scratch of within a really small company. And author did literally nothing to convince me I'm wrong - he's quite good in presenting the pros of Holocracy, but there's barely any mention of potential risks that can happen:
* decision paralysis within governance process
* gaps in processes in context of contradicting positions of circle's members
* potential slowness of decision making progress ("VETOers")
etc.
What did I like most?
* short idea about dealing with compensation in Holocracy-powered org (sadly, there should be many more ideas about adapting traditional enterprise mechanics into "flat world", but they are not here)
* some VERY good points about empowerment in different work scenarios
Anyway, I think that if you're interested in management, you should definitely read this book. Not necessarily because it's that good or because everybody will be doing Holocracy by next Tuesday - but just to make your own opinion on this interesting topic.
August 9, 2017
I read this book because it was discussed in Reinventing Organizations as a complete system for running things under self-organising principles. Unlike Reinventing Organizations, this book is not intended to be an inspirational guide, at least I don't think so. Instead, it is meant to present the management system that is Holocracy, walk us through its elements, its processes, its systems, and help us in deciding if we want to adopt it. The great advantage of adopting this management system is that it is fully developed, tried, testing, and mature. Attempting to redo this from scratch, I think, would be ludicrous. Then again, some aspects of the system may not be appealing to some.
In essence, it is a management system that replaces the traditional tree-like hierarchical structure that is so limiting and stifling, by a network of roles and circles of connected roles that continuously evolve under the natural forces at play in the organisation. Roles have specific authorities and accountabilities, and have full control and authority of them. Circles also have specific authorities and accountabilities, and have connections to the parent or sibling circles through links. Everything is stirred through two types of meetings: tactical meetings for processes and operations, and governance meetings to discuss, evolve and change roles and accountabilities. All tensions are processed during meetings, and nothing that needs to be dealt with is left out either on purpose or accidentally. The system itself, regardless of the individuals involved, makes sure of that.
The most important strengths of the system are that is it is evolutionary, and focused on the organisation and its purpose; not on people, likes and dislikes, egos and insecurities. Through this focus, every person filling every role is allowed the freedom and creativity to do whatever they can think of to further the organisation's purpose. This makes people owners of their accountabilities, and the evolutionary nature of the dynamic process allows them to grow, develop their skills, and evolve into different roles to which they are either more suited or in which they fell more useful and fulfilled. It does, to me, seem very appealing as a management system in which people can learn to fully express themselves and mature into autonomous, productive, creative, fulfilled free-thinkers, no matter what their roles and accountabilities are.
In essence, it is a management system that replaces the traditional tree-like hierarchical structure that is so limiting and stifling, by a network of roles and circles of connected roles that continuously evolve under the natural forces at play in the organisation. Roles have specific authorities and accountabilities, and have full control and authority of them. Circles also have specific authorities and accountabilities, and have connections to the parent or sibling circles through links. Everything is stirred through two types of meetings: tactical meetings for processes and operations, and governance meetings to discuss, evolve and change roles and accountabilities. All tensions are processed during meetings, and nothing that needs to be dealt with is left out either on purpose or accidentally. The system itself, regardless of the individuals involved, makes sure of that.
The most important strengths of the system are that is it is evolutionary, and focused on the organisation and its purpose; not on people, likes and dislikes, egos and insecurities. Through this focus, every person filling every role is allowed the freedom and creativity to do whatever they can think of to further the organisation's purpose. This makes people owners of their accountabilities, and the evolutionary nature of the dynamic process allows them to grow, develop their skills, and evolve into different roles to which they are either more suited or in which they fell more useful and fulfilled. It does, to me, seem very appealing as a management system in which people can learn to fully express themselves and mature into autonomous, productive, creative, fulfilled free-thinkers, no matter what their roles and accountabilities are.
June 3, 2015
This book does a great job at showcasing Holacracy, a new management system that distributes authority and accountability throughout an organization, instead of relying on managers to guide employees. What makes this book successful is that it includes both the "why" and the "how to" use Holacracy, all in a digestible read.
An aspect of Holacracy dear to me is that unlike current discourse on the matter, it doesn't put employees' and companies' interests back to back. Instead it proposes a system in which both personal autonomy and a fierce focus on the company's success are part of the same equation.
After years of hearing about Holacracy and reading bits and pieces about this rich model here and there, I can't recommend this book enough for anyone who wants the full story in one package.
Disclaimer: I work with HolacracyOne, the company developing the Holacracy model.
An aspect of Holacracy dear to me is that unlike current discourse on the matter, it doesn't put employees' and companies' interests back to back. Instead it proposes a system in which both personal autonomy and a fierce focus on the company's success are part of the same equation.
After years of hearing about Holacracy and reading bits and pieces about this rich model here and there, I can't recommend this book enough for anyone who wants the full story in one package.
Disclaimer: I work with HolacracyOne, the company developing the Holacracy model.
March 21, 2020
I was reading a short stories science fiction anthology at the same time; and the two books felt interchangeable. I had always been interested in aspects of holacracy, and reading this book in its entirety demonstrated how off-base I was with my assumptions.
For starters, most of the world's religions allow you to practice said faith with more flexility. Robertson is so rigid in his "it's 110% holacracy or it just won't work", that it felt like I was reading a cult's doctrine. This is where the science fiction aspects come in because much of the book is actually detailing the robotic interactions that holacracy dictates you have to practice. It's not that different from when fiction authors delve into a lot of detail to describe a completely different world.
It's hard to take much away from the book because there doesn't seem to be a lot of substance or evidence to substantiate why the world needs to reorganise in this model. You can describe any assortment of interactions, but that doesn't make it the right choice.
In the closing chapter, Robertson says that it's a natural evolution for organisations to deploy holacracy. However, unlike biomimicry or another emerging trend, there's nothing to indicate that humans behave like this.
I would only suggest holacracy to organisations that have no altruistic purpose (in actuality or for social capital purposes), who's sole aim is profit above all else. This book details the coming together of utilitarianism with capitalism. In it's focus about the organisation and not people, it is at least explicit that all sources of labor are just cogs in a bigger machine.
For starters, most of the world's religions allow you to practice said faith with more flexility. Robertson is so rigid in his "it's 110% holacracy or it just won't work", that it felt like I was reading a cult's doctrine. This is where the science fiction aspects come in because much of the book is actually detailing the robotic interactions that holacracy dictates you have to practice. It's not that different from when fiction authors delve into a lot of detail to describe a completely different world.
It's hard to take much away from the book because there doesn't seem to be a lot of substance or evidence to substantiate why the world needs to reorganise in this model. You can describe any assortment of interactions, but that doesn't make it the right choice.
In the closing chapter, Robertson says that it's a natural evolution for organisations to deploy holacracy. However, unlike biomimicry or another emerging trend, there's nothing to indicate that humans behave like this.
I would only suggest holacracy to organisations that have no altruistic purpose (in actuality or for social capital purposes), who's sole aim is profit above all else. This book details the coming together of utilitarianism with capitalism. In it's focus about the organisation and not people, it is at least explicit that all sources of labor are just cogs in a bigger machine.
September 23, 2017
Many good ideas, but for my taste too extreme and too process heavy. I like the idea of circles and roles and how autonomy and accountability is shifted. I also appreciate the separation of meta level from the operations.
What I have a hard time with is imagining adults liking being put into a strict process straightjacket. I just don't think that process alone will magically cure all problems of modern organizations.
Holacracy feels to me like its to teal organization what Scrum is for Agile.
Overall a decent 3.5
What I have a hard time with is imagining adults liking being put into a strict process straightjacket. I just don't think that process alone will magically cure all problems of modern organizations.
Holacracy feels to me like its to teal organization what Scrum is for Agile.
Overall a decent 3.5
August 1, 2016
A great example of how self-managing organizations can work successfully. As a person interested in particular in practical implementations, over theoretical possibilities, I found the book a great combination of both. Even if Holacracy does not fit your organization, I recommend the book to everyone who believe in the idea of self-managing organizations.
December 1, 2019
Takeaways:
1. Top down management is the same concept as a 5 year planned economy - it doesn't work, but it anchors you to a projected outcome -- think about Mao's Great Leap Forward famine and its roots.
2. Decisions made by boots on the ground who know the general strategy has long been best plan.
3. Modern corp structure doesn't provide authority to make the decisions at the ground level.
4. You need a different structure to be self-organizing / self-healing
5. This mindshift needs to be inside the company's DNA --> seems a lot easier to start this way and build.
6. Book was too dense and fast to process on first run. --> need a reread as well as some time with the Holacracy constitution and other docs from their site.
7. If you believe the future will be decentralized, then it seems only logical that your org structure is likewise structured to match.
1. Top down management is the same concept as a 5 year planned economy - it doesn't work, but it anchors you to a projected outcome -- think about Mao's Great Leap Forward famine and its roots.
2. Decisions made by boots on the ground who know the general strategy has long been best plan.
3. Modern corp structure doesn't provide authority to make the decisions at the ground level.
4. You need a different structure to be self-organizing / self-healing
5. This mindshift needs to be inside the company's DNA --> seems a lot easier to start this way and build.
6. Book was too dense and fast to process on first run. --> need a reread as well as some time with the Holacracy constitution and other docs from their site.
7. If you believe the future will be decentralized, then it seems only logical that your org structure is likewise structured to match.
August 9, 2022
This books makes implementing this management system seem incredibly complex and difficult. It is an idea I've been interested in but this book doesn't make it appealing.
October 2, 2015
I started this book expecting to hate it, but I actually enjoyed it. (It's a good question why I would read a book I expected to hate, but that's another topic!). It's probably the cover which I found off putting which makes the book look like another over-confident, but basically vacuous business nonsense. In reality this is a well thought through and genuinely innovative set of thinking about organizations. It is also well written, being an easy read, which is a good trick to pull off for novel ideas.
To some extent the tone of the book reminded me of some of the writing on Agile, and also a little of Goldratt's theory of constraints - not that there is any direct comparison. The similarity was in Robertson's idea of tensions, which reminded me of Goldratt's focus on constraints.
So, great - worth reading and interesting. Will it work? Frankly, I don't know. Most of the organizations involved are fairly small. Some of the organizations I work with have more people in support functions like procurement, than many of the organizations mentioned here employ in totality. Also many of the organizations are relatively new, and I would be interested in the change impact of trying to implement this in a long established business culture. But that is not a reason to reject the thinking. It's just a reason to be a little careful. After all we all know there's a lot wrong with many organizations and the way Robertson looks at these challenges is insightful. To be fair to Robertson, he treats the subject with realism and pragmatism, accepting that implementing a Holacracy is not always an easy ride.
Does that mean I liked everything? No. There were a few niggles. For example, I don't like the analogy Robertson uses of a new organization being like a new operating system - but that is probably just a personal thing.
What most irritated me will probably seem like a pedantic point. Robertson keeps talking about focusing on the goals of the organization, not the goals of people in it. Sorry, but organizations don't have goals, for the simple reason that an organization is not the sort of entity that can have a goal, any more than it can have a relationship, like music or enjoy hamburgers. Well, not unless you have a very different view of the nature of organizations from me. I am not trying to make an obscure metaphysical point. I think it is important that we don't try and envisage organizations as something they are not. And Robertson's continual stress that the organizational goal is something different from the goals of the people in it or any of its stakeholders kept making me think - so what is this entity that has its own goals?
However, I don't think this spoils the book and may well say more about my way of thinking than weaknesses in Robertson's.
To some extent the tone of the book reminded me of some of the writing on Agile, and also a little of Goldratt's theory of constraints - not that there is any direct comparison. The similarity was in Robertson's idea of tensions, which reminded me of Goldratt's focus on constraints.
So, great - worth reading and interesting. Will it work? Frankly, I don't know. Most of the organizations involved are fairly small. Some of the organizations I work with have more people in support functions like procurement, than many of the organizations mentioned here employ in totality. Also many of the organizations are relatively new, and I would be interested in the change impact of trying to implement this in a long established business culture. But that is not a reason to reject the thinking. It's just a reason to be a little careful. After all we all know there's a lot wrong with many organizations and the way Robertson looks at these challenges is insightful. To be fair to Robertson, he treats the subject with realism and pragmatism, accepting that implementing a Holacracy is not always an easy ride.
Does that mean I liked everything? No. There were a few niggles. For example, I don't like the analogy Robertson uses of a new organization being like a new operating system - but that is probably just a personal thing.
What most irritated me will probably seem like a pedantic point. Robertson keeps talking about focusing on the goals of the organization, not the goals of people in it. Sorry, but organizations don't have goals, for the simple reason that an organization is not the sort of entity that can have a goal, any more than it can have a relationship, like music or enjoy hamburgers. Well, not unless you have a very different view of the nature of organizations from me. I am not trying to make an obscure metaphysical point. I think it is important that we don't try and envisage organizations as something they are not. And Robertson's continual stress that the organizational goal is something different from the goals of the people in it or any of its stakeholders kept making me think - so what is this entity that has its own goals?
However, I don't think this spoils the book and may well say more about my way of thinking than weaknesses in Robertson's.
September 25, 2015
The concept is interesting, the presentation of the concept of Holacracy is detailed, but unfortunately not exciting enough. I was dragging myself through the chapters. It is clearly an important experiment and step towards new ways of working together as opposed to working for and under/over, etc. I need to experience Holacracy for giving it a fair review. On paper it appears to be a replacement of old structures that were becoming inefficient and rather an obstacle with a new structure that promises more efficiency through better procedures, rules and governance. It sounds all meaningful, yet also very clean and procedural. I am missing the human stories in this book. What about conflicts and chaos? How about employees that get stuck in this new concept? What are the human challenges when one is liberated within this working environment and still stuck in the old paradigm outside of work? How do people deal with this paradox?
January 1, 2018
I love the idea of roles, along with their responsibilities and accountabilities, versus job titles. My criticism of circles is that they are just another way to draw a tree hierarchy. (Try and see). The “lead link” is still a supervisor role despite what the Holocracy training states.
I’d like to see this in action somewhere.
I’d like to see this in action somewhere.
June 12, 2015
First part had great thoughts and a nice vibe. But the second part was mainly about organizing meetings, which I consider a separate subject. The third part felt like a desperate attempt to make anyone atleast try holocracy.
Read the first part and pick the good stuff.
Read the first part and pick the good stuff.
September 13, 2017
This book has some pretty advanced and innovative concepts for running a business. Lots of great ideas to get and implement in the business before making a final call as to moving into this new operating philosophy!
Read
August 16, 2015Ugh. No due dates? Maybe that's why your real company shut down and you're left telling other people how to business.
May 8, 2018
More or less Getting Things Done for organisations. Worth reading.
May 5, 2020
A mostly decent but far from complete manual for holacracy. This book briefly goes over why, before spending most of its time on "how", with considerable detail put into meeting formats, process frameworks, and "how this actually works". As a result, it's one of the more practical and applicable books of its kind.
Unlike Teal, it also tackles some aspects of goal orienting as a large organization, although not really. This isn't a consensus vote, and someone has to have ownership of it, but whom? The CEO, only he's not supposed to guide the company. What direction does the organization work towards? Who sets goals for the company as a whole? I'd be very interested in seeing data on how Holacracy is handling questions surrounding orientation and goal setting, changing business direction, etc. I will look for them, but they are not in this book.
The largest issue here is, of course, the author's absolute refusal to tackle people as an aspect of Holacracy or any other flat framework. "this is not about people". What? Apparently making a massive shift to switch to processes that support open communication, self-governance, and self-direction is not about people, but about processes. The issue is, of course, that asking people to change how they work is a big deal. Asking people to change how they communicate is a big deal. Buurtzorg, Patagonia, Morning Star, FAVI, etc., all introduce items like communications training, workshops on self management and self-governance, and significantly long training periods for new employees. Robertson seems to suggest that people will just get over it after a brief period of discomfort. Well sure if you throw the kid in the swimming pool they'll learn to swim or drown, but it seems mightily inefficient.
Unlike Teal, it also tackles some aspects of goal orienting as a large organization, although not really. This isn't a consensus vote, and someone has to have ownership of it, but whom? The CEO, only he's not supposed to guide the company. What direction does the organization work towards? Who sets goals for the company as a whole? I'd be very interested in seeing data on how Holacracy is handling questions surrounding orientation and goal setting, changing business direction, etc. I will look for them, but they are not in this book.
The largest issue here is, of course, the author's absolute refusal to tackle people as an aspect of Holacracy or any other flat framework. "this is not about people". What? Apparently making a massive shift to switch to processes that support open communication, self-governance, and self-direction is not about people, but about processes. The issue is, of course, that asking people to change how they work is a big deal. Asking people to change how they communicate is a big deal. Buurtzorg, Patagonia, Morning Star, FAVI, etc., all introduce items like communications training, workshops on self management and self-governance, and significantly long training periods for new employees. Robertson seems to suggest that people will just get over it after a brief period of discomfort. Well sure if you throw the kid in the swimming pool they'll learn to swim or drown, but it seems mightily inefficient.
November 9, 2021
The author reinforces the relevance of holacracy as an alternative management system that distributes authority and decision-making throughout an organization, and defines people not by hierarchy and titles, but by roles. Brian states that there's no way of adopting it partially and that the benefits of it are that holacracy creates organizations that are fast, agile, and that succeed by pursuing their purpose, not following a dated and artificial plan.
The author is super didactical on teaching how to create new structures and ways of making decisions that empower the people on the frontline, who know the most about the work you do.
It's a concept with a lot to be learned on the barriers and enablers of its adoption. The theory is great, but I missed empirical data and more examples on its adoption by successful companies (not only Zappos).
The author is super didactical on teaching how to create new structures and ways of making decisions that empower the people on the frontline, who know the most about the work you do.
It's a concept with a lot to be learned on the barriers and enablers of its adoption. The theory is great, but I missed empirical data and more examples on its adoption by successful companies (not only Zappos).
January 27, 2023
I don´t know if this system is practical or even something to be desired. But it was very refreshing to read about some idea that felt so out of the box to my domain of knowledge about organizational structures that it was just refreshing to be out of that box for a moment. Good read, although it needs a moment to sink in.
May 25, 2019
This book sits somewhere between Morningstar approach (there are no managers) and normal leadership innovation. There are some thought provoking ideas, but as a general management system it disregards the sociological/psychological aspects too much and could be fully implemented in organizations without politics (are there such organizations?). According to holacracy you should not focus on the people but the roles needed in the organization and in conversation and plans also refer to different roles instead (one person might carry multiple roles). Additionally discussions around operations and organizing work/clarifying responsibilities are kept strictly isolated. In the center of holacracy is the facilitation process for those meetings (most important is to follow the script which means interrupting people and ignoring everything that is not in line with the type of discussion). There was interesting idea that in hoacratic organization you don't have to spend any effort on chasing commitments and you simply have to work on the most important item at any moment of time, I'm yet to figure out how to make something similar work in real life. The book/framework was co-authored with David Allen (Getting things done) thus I had relatively high expectations, there were also some concepts from GTD mentioned like the "immediate next action." Also there are a lot of references to Zappos in relation to holacracy (wasn't aware of this link earlier) which reminded me that I still have "Delivering happiness" in my reading list... (need to fix that).
“Holacracy includes the following elements:
• a constitution, which sets out the “rules of the game” and redistributes authority
• a new way to structure an organization and define people’s roles and spheres of authority within it • a unique decision-making process for updating those roles and authorities
• a meeting process for keeping teams in sync and getting work done together”
“Holacracy obsoletes the habit of making commitments about when you will deliver a particular project or action. In tactical meetings, for example, we capture next-actions, but do not attach deadline commitments to them. Why? As much as the practice of setting deadlines is generally recommended in today’s business world, allow me to offer a contrary view: committing to deadlines has important downsides, and using them obscures a more dynamic, reality-based approach.”
“On a human level, regular governance meetings can transform the emotional tone of a team. Unclear governance leaves everyone with implicit expectations of who should be doing what and how they should be doing it. Without a defined governance process, it’s easy to make up negative stories about others or toss around blame when unspoken assumptions clash—or to avoid those problems by pressuring people to align with implicit expectations, often through political cajoling or consensus building.”
I was intrigued about the reference in the beginning of the book regarding how innovation keeps growing with size of a city but the same does not occur in organizations. In the end I was not so convinced that this approach is sufficient to make innovation in organizations grow like it does organically in cities.
“Research shows that every time the size of a city doubles, innovation or productivity per resident increases by 15 percent. But when companies get bigger, innovation or productivity per employee generally goes down.”
“Holacracy includes the following elements:
• a constitution, which sets out the “rules of the game” and redistributes authority
• a new way to structure an organization and define people’s roles and spheres of authority within it • a unique decision-making process for updating those roles and authorities
• a meeting process for keeping teams in sync and getting work done together”
“Holacracy obsoletes the habit of making commitments about when you will deliver a particular project or action. In tactical meetings, for example, we capture next-actions, but do not attach deadline commitments to them. Why? As much as the practice of setting deadlines is generally recommended in today’s business world, allow me to offer a contrary view: committing to deadlines has important downsides, and using them obscures a more dynamic, reality-based approach.”
“On a human level, regular governance meetings can transform the emotional tone of a team. Unclear governance leaves everyone with implicit expectations of who should be doing what and how they should be doing it. Without a defined governance process, it’s easy to make up negative stories about others or toss around blame when unspoken assumptions clash—or to avoid those problems by pressuring people to align with implicit expectations, often through political cajoling or consensus building.”
I was intrigued about the reference in the beginning of the book regarding how innovation keeps growing with size of a city but the same does not occur in organizations. In the end I was not so convinced that this approach is sufficient to make innovation in organizations grow like it does organically in cities.
“Research shows that every time the size of a city doubles, innovation or productivity per resident increases by 15 percent. But when companies get bigger, innovation or productivity per employee generally goes down.”
August 17, 2019
It's an amazing set of concepts in which I firmly believe. They will take a LOT of work yet the results should be fantastic. Some will be tempted to think that these ideas are all new. Well, some are, but many are not. These basic concepts have been proven many times through efforts that are often tagged with labels such as Lean, Agile, Self-organizing, and Management 3.0. The software world has embraced many of these concepts, but the rest of the organization has been slow to move, with a few notable exceptions such as Gore (of Gore-Tex fame), FAVI, AES (whose founder wrote The Decision Maker). Love this structure or hate it, it's fascinating. I believe that some form of these concepts will sweep the business world, even though not at the same rate as the software world. It will be interesting to watch.
WHO WILL LOVE THIS: Anyone deeply interested in a business with distributed authority, self-management, and wanting to see these concepts spread into business (possibly sparked by success in the software and product development world). It will hep if you can dig through strange concepts until you get those pockets of understanding that begin to gel together. (The more familiar you are with these concepts, the faster you will "get it"... consider Gary Hamil's The Future of Management to get a solid general understanding first).
WHO WILL HATE THIS: Those that want simple solutions or are bored easily with "out there" concepts. Those that want decades of proof from critical masses. Those that want a solid prescription rather than a framework into which they have to experiment to find the right details for the organization in question.
One day I hope to implement these concepts in my own organization.
WHO WILL LOVE THIS: Anyone deeply interested in a business with distributed authority, self-management, and wanting to see these concepts spread into business (possibly sparked by success in the software and product development world). It will hep if you can dig through strange concepts until you get those pockets of understanding that begin to gel together. (The more familiar you are with these concepts, the faster you will "get it"... consider Gary Hamil's The Future of Management to get a solid general understanding first).
WHO WILL HATE THIS: Those that want simple solutions or are bored easily with "out there" concepts. Those that want decades of proof from critical masses. Those that want a solid prescription rather than a framework into which they have to experiment to find the right details for the organization in question.
One day I hope to implement these concepts in my own organization.
August 26, 2018
A terrific and very inspiring book, if you want a deep-dive (also detail-wise) into how exactly you can (and can not) implement the modern version of an organic, self-governing organization.
A word of caution: The latter parts of the book are not for the reader just wanting a quick overview of things - it is, as mentioned, a rather detailed (= actually useful :-) ) recipe for introducing - and managing - a Holacracy based organization.
A word of caution: The latter parts of the book are not for the reader just wanting a quick overview of things - it is, as mentioned, a rather detailed (= actually useful :-) ) recipe for introducing - and managing - a Holacracy based organization.
August 17, 2018
As an entrepreneur, allergic to pyramid hierarchy, it was good to finally read about alternative systems to run a company. Reinventing organisations by F. Laloux showed that new forms of organisation exist. This book described one possible system. Next I will explore sociocracy. I am glad I read this book, but only experience with this system will teach you if it works for you or not.
January 4, 2016
Robertson prescribes a very compelling approach to building an organization that can evolve naturally as it adapts to sensed opportunities for improvement, but it's one that requires a very thorough rethinking of how most organizations are currently structured.
August 25, 2015
Great book with great Ideas.
November 12, 2017
Very good primer into good governance and developing innovative operations management.
July 27, 2023
Title: Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World by Brian J. Robertson
Tags:
1. business: The book pertains to the domain of business management and organizational structure.
2. non-fiction: It's a non-fiction work that presents an innovative approach to running a business.
3. leadership: Robertson's Holacracy system redefines traditional notions of leadership.
4. company-culture: Holacracy is a system that greatly impacts and shapes a company's culture.
5. decision-theory: The book involves decision-making theories in terms of management and governance of organizations.
6. organizational-structure: The core topic of the book is an innovative organizational structure.
7. personal-development: Individuals can learn about and apply the principles of Holacracy to improve their professional life.
Expanded Summary:
In "Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World," Brian J. Robertson outlines an alternative management system that aims to create organizations that are fast, agile, and that succeed by pursuing their purpose, not by pleasing a boss or meeting arbitrary KPIs.
Key takeaways include:
1. Introduction to Holacracy: Holacracy is a system of organizational governance, in which authority and decision-making are distributed throughout self-organizing teams rather than being vested in a management hierarchy.
2. Roles instead of Job Descriptions: In a holacracy, people fulfill several different roles, often on different teams, all of which are explicitly defined. Roles are not job descriptions; they evolve dynamically and are based on the real work that needs to get done.
3. Decision-making Process: Holacracy introduces a unique decision-making process for structuring work, based on distributed authority. This gives teams the power to reshape and adapt their roles to better achieve their work and optimize their operations, without the need for consensus or top-down directives.
4. Purpose-Driven: Holacracy shifts organizations from a predict-and-control paradigm to a dynamic steering and learning paradigm, allowing the organization to orient and adapt rapidly towards its purpose.
5. Governance & Tactical Meetings: Holacracy structures its key meetings differently than traditional organizations, with a focus on addressing tension, updating roles, and making rapid decisions.
6. Autonomy and Alignment: Holacracy offers a way to get the benefits of both autonomy and alignment, without a trade-off, allowing for more agile and responsive organizations.
The book is a practical guide for any leader or manager looking for new ways to invigorate their organization, especially those interested in agile, lean, and innovative management practices. It provides a thorough understanding of the system, its underlying principles, and how to implement it.
Tags:
1. business: The book pertains to the domain of business management and organizational structure.
2. non-fiction: It's a non-fiction work that presents an innovative approach to running a business.
3. leadership: Robertson's Holacracy system redefines traditional notions of leadership.
4. company-culture: Holacracy is a system that greatly impacts and shapes a company's culture.
5. decision-theory: The book involves decision-making theories in terms of management and governance of organizations.
6. organizational-structure: The core topic of the book is an innovative organizational structure.
7. personal-development: Individuals can learn about and apply the principles of Holacracy to improve their professional life.
Expanded Summary:
In "Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World," Brian J. Robertson outlines an alternative management system that aims to create organizations that are fast, agile, and that succeed by pursuing their purpose, not by pleasing a boss or meeting arbitrary KPIs.
Key takeaways include:
1. Introduction to Holacracy: Holacracy is a system of organizational governance, in which authority and decision-making are distributed throughout self-organizing teams rather than being vested in a management hierarchy.
2. Roles instead of Job Descriptions: In a holacracy, people fulfill several different roles, often on different teams, all of which are explicitly defined. Roles are not job descriptions; they evolve dynamically and are based on the real work that needs to get done.
3. Decision-making Process: Holacracy introduces a unique decision-making process for structuring work, based on distributed authority. This gives teams the power to reshape and adapt their roles to better achieve their work and optimize their operations, without the need for consensus or top-down directives.
4. Purpose-Driven: Holacracy shifts organizations from a predict-and-control paradigm to a dynamic steering and learning paradigm, allowing the organization to orient and adapt rapidly towards its purpose.
5. Governance & Tactical Meetings: Holacracy structures its key meetings differently than traditional organizations, with a focus on addressing tension, updating roles, and making rapid decisions.
6. Autonomy and Alignment: Holacracy offers a way to get the benefits of both autonomy and alignment, without a trade-off, allowing for more agile and responsive organizations.
The book is a practical guide for any leader or manager looking for new ways to invigorate their organization, especially those interested in agile, lean, and innovative management practices. It provides a thorough understanding of the system, its underlying principles, and how to implement it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 130 reviews