Holacracy: Difference between revisions
m (fixed unprintable; page does not render) |
(Corrected information for accuracy. Added a few links) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Holacracy = An organizational governance system''' developed by Brian Robertson, | '''Holacracy = An organizational governance system''' developed by Brian Robertson through incremental testing in his software company Ternary Software, in the early 2000's. Holacracy was influenced by many methods such as [[Agile Software Development|agile software development]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done Getting Things Done®], [[Sociocracy]], and [http://youtu.be/h2lFqeJZN0g several others]. | ||
Some critics from sociocracy assert that Holacracy is simply a re-branding of Sociocracy, and point to the re-introduction of hierarchical elements within the process. | |||
=Description= | =Description= | ||
A brief overview of each of holacracy’s structural elements and key practices: | All the rules of Holacracy are clearly laid out in a document, the [http://holacracy.org/resources/holacracy-constitution Holacracy Constitution]. A brief overview of each of holacracy’s structural elements and key practices: | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
'''Circle Organization''' | '''Circle Organization''' | ||
The organization is built as a holarchy of semi-autonomous, self-organizing circles. Each circle is given | The organization is built as a holarchy of semi-autonomous, self-organizing circles. Each circle is given a purpose by its higher-level circle, and has the authority and responsibility to execute, measure, and control its own processes to move towards that purpose. | ||
'''Double-Linking''' | '''Double-Linking''' | ||
A lower circle is always linked to the circle above it via at least two | A lower circle is always linked to the circle above it via at least two roles that belong to and take part in the decision making of both the higher circle and the lower circle. One of these links has overall accountability for the lower-level circle’s results - "Lead Link" - and the other is a representative elected from within the lower-level circle - "Rep Link". | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
'''Individual Action''' | '''Individual Action''' | ||
Acting from their roles, individuals may take any action needed to best express their role's purpose, within the constraints of existing 'scopes' and 'policies'. If such action goes against existing policies, it is considered an "individual action": the individual may take the action anyway if more harm would be done by not taking it than by taking it. After the fact, the individual must explain his action and take whatever next action is necessary to improve the situation, so that s/he will not need to take the same individual action again. The individual brings the need for the action to a circle meeting so the system can learn and adapt by evolving policies and structures in light of the new information. | |||
'''Circle Meetings''' | '''Circle Meetings''' | ||
There are two main types of meetings in Holacracy: Tactical (frequent) and Governance (less frequent) meetings. | |||
Tactical meetings are all about bringing visibility to the current situation of the circle (review of checklists, metrics, projects) and triaging tactical issues: circle members determine new projects and next actions needed to move forward. | |||
Governance meetings are designed to translate the learning from doing the work into organizational evolution. Circle members bring proposals to create, modify or remove roles and policies within the circle. Any circle member may bring proposals, and a structured process - "Integrative Decision Making" - ensures that 1) all proposals are equally processed, yet that 2) no one person can dominate the process, so that 3) accepted proposals don't harm the circle, and therefore the organization. | |||
'''Dynamic Steering''' | '''Dynamic Steering''' | ||
Holacracy transcends predict-and-control steering with dynamic steering. All policies and decisions are made based on present understanding and refined as new information emerges. | Holacracy transcends predict-and-control steering with dynamic steering. All policies and decisions are made based on present understanding and refined as new information emerges. thus, improvements are incremental, never looking for the "best solution" but for a fast, workable solution to move forward. | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
'''Restorative Justice''' | '''Restorative Justice''' | ||
When accountabilities are dropped or individual action leads to harm, balance is reestablished through a restorative justice system rather than a punitive one. First, all individuals involved | When accountabilities are dropped or individual action leads to harm, balance is reestablished through a restorative justice system rather than a punitive one. First, all individuals involved "look in the mirror" to find their contribution to the situation, and take restorative action to bring the system back into balance. The extent of their restorative action is commensurate with their contribution, as measured by the relevant circle. Once restorative action is underway, the circles involved use the situation to learn and adapt, by defining or evolving accountabilities, limits, measurements, and policies to transcend the need for the injustice in the first place. | ||
(http:// | (http://holacracy.org/how-it-works) | ||
[[Category:Encyclopedia]] | [[Category:Encyclopedia]] | ||
[[Category:Governance]] | [[Category:Governance]] | ||
Revision as of 07:47, 11 December 2012
Holacracy = An organizational governance system developed by Brian Robertson through incremental testing in his software company Ternary Software, in the early 2000's. Holacracy was influenced by many methods such as agile software development, Getting Things Done®, Sociocracy, and several others.
Some critics from sociocracy assert that Holacracy is simply a re-branding of Sociocracy, and point to the re-introduction of hierarchical elements within the process.
Description
All the rules of Holacracy are clearly laid out in a document, the Holacracy Constitution. A brief overview of each of holacracy’s structural elements and key practices:
Core Structure
Circle Organization
The organization is built as a holarchy of semi-autonomous, self-organizing circles. Each circle is given a purpose by its higher-level circle, and has the authority and responsibility to execute, measure, and control its own processes to move towards that purpose.
Double-Linking
A lower circle is always linked to the circle above it via at least two roles that belong to and take part in the decision making of both the higher circle and the lower circle. One of these links has overall accountability for the lower-level circle’s results - "Lead Link" - and the other is a representative elected from within the lower-level circle - "Rep Link".
Core Practices
Individual Action
Acting from their roles, individuals may take any action needed to best express their role's purpose, within the constraints of existing 'scopes' and 'policies'. If such action goes against existing policies, it is considered an "individual action": the individual may take the action anyway if more harm would be done by not taking it than by taking it. After the fact, the individual must explain his action and take whatever next action is necessary to improve the situation, so that s/he will not need to take the same individual action again. The individual brings the need for the action to a circle meeting so the system can learn and adapt by evolving policies and structures in light of the new information.
Circle Meetings
There are two main types of meetings in Holacracy: Tactical (frequent) and Governance (less frequent) meetings.
Tactical meetings are all about bringing visibility to the current situation of the circle (review of checklists, metrics, projects) and triaging tactical issues: circle members determine new projects and next actions needed to move forward.
Governance meetings are designed to translate the learning from doing the work into organizational evolution. Circle members bring proposals to create, modify or remove roles and policies within the circle. Any circle member may bring proposals, and a structured process - "Integrative Decision Making" - ensures that 1) all proposals are equally processed, yet that 2) no one person can dominate the process, so that 3) accepted proposals don't harm the circle, and therefore the organization.
Dynamic Steering
Holacracy transcends predict-and-control steering with dynamic steering. All policies and decisions are made based on present understanding and refined as new information emerges. thus, improvements are incremental, never looking for the "best solution" but for a fast, workable solution to move forward.
Integrative Elections
People are elected to key roles through an integrative election process after open discussion.
Restorative Justice
When accountabilities are dropped or individual action leads to harm, balance is reestablished through a restorative justice system rather than a punitive one. First, all individuals involved "look in the mirror" to find their contribution to the situation, and take restorative action to bring the system back into balance. The extent of their restorative action is commensurate with their contribution, as measured by the relevant circle. Once restorative action is underway, the circles involved use the situation to learn and adapt, by defining or evolving accountabilities, limits, measurements, and policies to transcend the need for the injustice in the first place.