Governance
Organizers:
- Organized by
-
-
Holocracy & Holocracy compared to distributed leadership
-
Holocracy & Holocracy compared to distributed leadership
Holacracy is a system of organizational governance that aims to distribute authority and decision-making throughout a company or organization. It is designed to replace traditional hierarchical management structures with a more flexible and autonomous approach. Here’s how Holacracy works:
1. Roles and Circles: In Holacracy, the organization is divided into various roles and circles. Roles represent specific functions or responsibilities within the organization, and circles are self-organizing groups of roles that work together towards a common purpose.
2. Governance Process: Holacracy has a defined governance process that allows for the continuous evolution of the organization. It starts with a regular meeting called a “Governance Meeting” where roles and accountabilities are defined, modified, and distributed. This process helps clarify the organization’s structure and ensures that every role has a clear purpose and responsibilities.
3. Tactical Meetings: Holacracy also utilizes tactical meetings called “Tactical Meetings” to facilitate day-to-day operations. These meetings provide a platform for roles to discuss operational issues, make decisions, and take necessary actions. The focus is on solving problems and enabling work to happen more effectively.
4. Decentralized Authority: In Holacracy, authority is distributed across roles rather than concentrated in a traditional hierarchy. Each role has the autonomy to make decisions and take actions within the boundaries of its defined responsibilities. This empowers individuals and enables faster decision-making, as the need for approval from multiple levels of management is reduced.
5. Double-Linking: Holacracy uses a concept called “double-linking” to create connections between circles and roles. Each circle has a representative called a “lead link” who acts as a liaison between the circle and broader organizational concerns. This ensures that information flows both ways and allows for coordination and alignment across the organization.
6. Transparent Processes: Holacracy emphasizes transparency and aims to make information easily accessible to everyone in the organization. Roles and their accountabilities, decision-making processes, and governance records are documented and made available for everyone to see. This helps in fostering trust, clarity, and alignment within the organization.
7. Continuous Improvement: Holacracy encourages a culture of continuous improvement and learning. The governance and tactical processes are regularly reviewed and refined based on feedback and experience. This iterative approach allows the organization to adapt and evolve over time.
It’s important to note that implementing Holacracy requires a significant shift in organizational culture and mindset. It may not be suitable for all organizations and has its own set of challenges and considerations.
-
This discussion was modified 3 months ago by
Oscar Regen Tribe 🔺.
-
This discussion was modified 3 months ago by
-
1 Reply
-
Holacracy and distributed leadership share some similarities in their focus on distributing authority and decision-making within an organization. However, there are also differences in their approaches. Here’s a comparison of Holacracy and distributed leadership:
1. Organizational Structure: In Holacracy, the organization is structured around roles and circles, with specific responsibilities and accountabilities defined for each role. It has a defined governance process and clear rules for decision-making. On the other hand, distributed leadership is more fluid and organic, focusing on empowering individuals at all levels of the organization to take leadership roles and make decisions based on their expertise and insights. It doesn’t have a rigid structure like Holacracy.
2. Decision-Making: In Holacracy, decision-making authority is distributed among roles, and individuals within those roles have the autonomy to make decisions within their defined responsibilities. The governance process provides a framework for making and evolving decisions. Distributed leadership, on the other hand, emphasizes decentralized decision-making where individuals across the organization have the authority and responsibility to make decisions based on their knowledge and expertise. There may not be a specific process like in Holacracy.
3. Formality and Processes: Holacracy has a more formalized structure and specific processes for governance and tactical meetings. It provides a clear framework for organizing work and making decisions. Distributed leadership, on the other hand, is often less formal and may rely more on informal communication and collaboration. The emphasis is on leveraging the collective intelligence of the organization rather than following prescribed processes.
4. Flexibility and Adaptability: Holacracy offers a systematic approach to distributing authority and decision-making, with defined roles and processes. While it allows for flexibility within those boundaries, it may be less adaptable to rapid changes or unexpected situations. Distributed leadership, on the other hand, is inherently flexible and adaptable. It encourages individuals to take initiative and adapt their leadership style based on the context and needs of the organization.
5. Culture and Mindset: Both Holacracy and distributed leadership require a shift in organizational culture and mindset. However, Holacracy provides a more structured framework that helps drive that cultural change. It introduces specific processes and rules that guide behavior and decision-making. Distributed leadership, on the other hand, focuses on fostering a culture of trust, collaboration, and empowerment, where individuals are encouraged to take ownership and lead from wherever they are in the organization.
In summary, Holacracy provides a more structured and process-driven approach to distributing authority and decision-making, while distributed leadership emphasizes empowering individuals across the organization to take on leadership roles and make decisions based on their expertise. The choice between the two depends on the organization’s needs, culture, and preferences.