7 mars 2017
Romain Bisseret

Holacracy: what about the people?

We've been running Holacracy at In Excelsis since July 2014, so you can consider what follows as an inside peak.

At first, we really liked the operational touch and the efficacy in the way the work was organized. What we really disliked was the new kind of relationships (or "lack of..." as we felt) induced by the processes: you can't give an advice to help someone else fix his/her problem, can't comment on the metrics, must wait for your turn to present your case, must follow the decision process, can't object a procedure someone else was about to create as long as this wouldn't harm the company, etc. After going for it, we found ourselves somewhat lost, and maybe a bit peeved. The various testimonies of companies struggling with Holacracy are as many occasions for us to optimize the process of implementation (see here for instance). Most of the time, people blame holacracy for being "non-human". In my opinion, this is blaming the wrong guy, because human relationships are not part of Holacracy.

Organizing the work without human relationships

The key is to understand that relationships have nothing to do with the way we can organize the collective work! But we're so used to "mix the person and the function" that it's not an easy understanding to grasp.

Dear reader, you're not defined by your sole activity. Your job is not who you are. You function is not your being. This is obvious for anyone who did even just a bit of personal development work. Yet, many people resist this fact the moment we talk about jobs in their company. This is perfectly normal: the management hierarchy, which is the only one 99% of the people working in companies know of, is precisely based on this paradigm which mixes the person and the function. Jurgen Appelo gives a perfect example of this ambiguity, despite himself, when he says:

« Most importantly, when I delegate work to someone, I ask a human being. I asked my friend Sergey to automate some of our business processes because I fully trust his programming skills as a developer and his business insights as an entrepreneur. I specifically did not delegate this work to our Business Process Architect, because A) we don't have one, and B) we don't want one. We have Sergey ».

Seriously? If Sergey resigns, what would the ad to replace him look like? "Hey, we're looking for a Sergey-bis?" What if Sergey is not his "friend"? Would the delegation be the same? I totally agree that Sergey is not a Business Project Architect; he's someone who energizes the functions that define what a Business Project Architect is (and which you can call any way you fancy, by the way), and that Jurgen needs even though he denies it ; maybe Sergey would be a postman or a data scientist in two years from now, and I doubt Jurgen would delegate this very same task to him then…

This nuance is fundamental, in that it brings clarity everywhere, and makes the implicit explicit, which is maybe the strongest feature of Holacracy: responsabilities and accountabilities are clearly established, everybody knows who does what, not in terms of Sergey and Jurgen, but in terms of "what functions need to be fullfilled for us to achieve our desired outcomes".

Holacracy: the body guard

To make a long story short, Holacracy is a way to organize the collective work. Nothing more, nothing less. The goal here is not to "liberate companies", but rather to liberate company purposes: to eliminate what comes in the way of achieving our outcomes, to make it so that the work we do together encounters the least possible amount of frictions. Nowhere do we talk about living together, or happiness in the workplace, or great professional relationships. All this matters a lot and is really important to us at In Excelsis (our motto: "to ease, to pacify and to enrich life in the workplace"). But it has not much to do with how we can work together. I don't need (and I shouldn't need) good relationships with my colleagues to be able to do what I have to do; me being friend with Sergey must not impact the work we do together.

The current management hierarchy, by mixing people and functions, supposes the exact opposite: the more friend I am with someone, the more chances I have that my requests will be fulfilled (which is totally normal, human beings tend to promote people they like). In Holacracy, since we differentiate the people that'll do the job and the functions needed to do it, the subject of human relationships doesn't surge in the same place. But it does surge, and maybe even stronger, precisely because the Holacracy system in and of itself doesn't take care of it. We are psychological beings, we have needs for space, communication, belonging, contribution, sharing, a sense of purpose, etc. Even in Holacracy, my friendship with Sergey might come into play, but it will have way less consequences on our common work because the holacratic processes forbids them to appear here. So where do they appear?

The company, the people, the work

One can define a company as a moral entity that gathers individuals working together to fulfill it's purpose. This can be seen as follows (thanks encode.org). 

The Company circle represents the owners : the company is their Property. These people sometimes work in the company (directors) but not necessarily (shareholders). Generally speaking, we have no problem accepting that the owners of a company might be different people than the ones working in it. This happens quite often. So the Company is :

  • a legal framework (and varying juridictions),
  • different types of ownerships (short term profits, long term investment…),
  • in holacracy, the fact that owners don't hold the power.

The Association is the group of people working in the company. They don't necessarily have a share, they're just bound by contract to do the work needed to attain the company's desired outcomes (at worst), or fulfill its purpose (at best). Simply put, the Association circle represents :

  • people aligned with the Purpose ,
  • explicit agreements around social norms,
  • where mentoring, coaching and human relationships happen,
  • a space to process interpersonal tensions (Appreciative Inquiry, Empathetic Communication…).

The Organization is the way the work is organized in the company : governance, procedures, metrics, resource allocations, goals, actions to undertake, etc. In Holacracy, the Organization is:

  • distributing power to roles, not people,
  • expressing the work in pursuit of the purpose,
  • a clear management and control system,
  • clear rules which facilitate self-organization
  • an always evolving structure.

The management hierarchy and most of its more or less horizontal variants mixes up the last two groups.

It's fundamental in my experience to realize that Holacracy only applies to the Work. It only cares for operations : Holacracy doesn't have a say in the legal structure nor the property/ownership of the company, and also not in regard to its values, culture, human relationships or how to deal with all that. The Constitution states the rules of the game people in the Association will have to follow in order to reach the outcomes of the company: to put it bluntly, rules of the game are not defined by the people. This is obvious when playing cards, it appears to be less so in management hierarchy because management hierarchy mixes people and functions, hence bringing confusion; it's not rare for people to change how they do things depending on the manager they get, or become. In management hierarchy, the human gathering that constitutes the Association sometimes even defines the way the Organization will function. In Holacracy, we make sure the rules are not defined by the people, but rather by the game.

Consequences and advices

Sure, this new system raises a lot of questions in a lot of different fields (legal, relational, financial, etc.), many of which don't have an obvious answer: each company running this system will have to find their own. The Company circle is not too much affected by adopting Holacracy (contrary to one might think), because it's quite common in our society to have people owning a company without working in it. Questions raised can be quickly solved by the creation of adequate Roles.

On the other hand, the Association circle is deeply impacted, as most commentaries and critiques point out. A company that would like to implement Holacracy would have to address this challenge in a very specific manner. Whatever tool is chosen for this (Appreciative Inquiry, NVC, etc.), a time to think and reflect, and to train people in interpersonal relationships soft skills is needed.

The Organization circle, obviously, is the most impacted since it gets a whole new core. The impact is even more profound that Holacracy supposes people are autonomous in enacting their actions and projects. This last point can seem a small one: it isn't, and by far. Not having a personal productivity system to deal with the flow you suddenly get and are supposed to be able to deal with on your own can quickly lead someone to be totally overwhelmed, even more than in a conventional management hierarchy.

In my view, a good and successful implementation needs to take care of the people forming the Association in two ways:

  • enabling them to deal with their workload (to bear wth the change in the Organization),
  • training them to communicate with others and themselves in a positive way when encountering a difficult situation (to bear with the change in the Association).

And I'm not the only one to point this out. See what Bud Caddell, management consultant who advised Zappos on how to optimize their Holacracy implementation, says about this:

«The average employee is already overworked and undertrained; asking them to learn the management equivalent of Dungeons and Dragons on top of their workload is foolish, if not inhumane ».

You need to train people so they can face an heavy workload with a minimum of stress, to train them as well in interpersonal communication techniques, and to create spaces for sharing, esprit de corps, etc.

What helped us a lot in our own Holacracy implementation here at In Excelsis is the fact we already had tools to address both those challenges : we're all GTD-ers, and 90% of us are trained in Empathetic Communication (which is basically NonViolent Communication adapted to the professional world). GTD (Getting Things Done, David Allen's stressfree productivity system) helped us take care of projects and actions, and already had us deal with whatever came our way in terms of projects (we don't have problems, we only have projects). Empathetic Communication obviously helped us go through the rigidity of many holacratic processes, because we know how to give empathy (to ourselves and others) when we have to remain silent in front of something that creates a huge internal tension and wait for our turn to express it, for example. Both these methods have proven really effective to us; of course, there might be others.

Laisser un commentaire

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.

6 juillet 2020
Du bonheur d’effectuer des réunions en ligne performantes : les Liberating Structures à la rescousse.

Les Liberating Structures nous permettent de facto d’avoir des séances de travail en ligne vraiment productives et satisfaisantes.

3 avril 2019
Inclusion avec les Liberating Structures

Compte-rendu de la conférence Liberating Structures de Seattle 2019, par Frédéric de Verville.

7 mars 2019
Alignement : de la raison d’être à la prochaine action

La méthode Getting Things Done permet un incomparable alignement de la raison d'être et des actions d'une personne, d'une équipe ou d'une société. ll suffit d'utiliser les Horizons d'attention d'une manière précise.

9 mai 2018
Les 3 paradoxes de GTD (et comment s’en sortir)

La mise en place de la méthode GTD (Getting Things Done) rencontre trois écueils principaux, qui peuvent se surmonter en appliquant un principe directeur et une piste d'actions concrètes.

12 décembre 2017
GTD et les responsabilités : le pont entre l'action et la raison d'être

Les Zones de Responsabilités sont un des Horizons d'Attention majeurs de GTD. Pour autant, ils sont souvent méconnus et sous-utilisés.

30 novembre 2017
Du jeu des polarités dans une réunion de gouvernance

Le sujet du jour va concerner l'Holacracy et notamment la réunion de Gouvernance. Cette réunion est celle où les membres d'un même cercle vont travailler collectivement sur la structure de l'organisation. Il se trouve qu'elle est souvent mal vécue au départ à la fois par les participants et souvent par les facilitateurs eux-mêmes. J'aimerais partager aujourd'hui […]

10 novembre 2017
À l'aide ! J'ai trop de réunions. Je n'arrive plus à avancer !

L'avalanche quotidienne de réunions et de courriers électroniques m'empêchent de vraiment mener mes projets à long terme.
Comment est-ce que je peux faire pour avancer sur ce qui compte le plus pour moi sans me laisser happer par ce qui retient trop souvent mon attention ?

30 octobre 2017
Holacracy et GTD : de la gestion de soi à l'organisation collective

Les rapports étroits qui existent entre les méthodes GTD et Holacracy font qu'il est délicat d'être efficace dans la seconde sans pratiquer la première. Par construction.

27 juillet 2017
Partir en vacances dans les meilleures conditions

Partir en vacances pour aller se reposer, c'est bien. Partir l'esprit libre, c'est encore mieux.

Existe t-il des bonnes pratiques permettant de systématiquement au manager de mettre tout son environnement de travail en ordre de manière à partir l'esprit serein sans être inquiété d'une possible mauvaise surprise à son retour ?

Ces bonnes pratiques peuvent être extraites de ce qui s'appelle la Revue Hebdomadaire

Nous voyons ici comment les adapter pour un départ en vacances.

1 juillet 2017
La prochaine action, ou comment s'auto-déléguer

Le concept de la Prochaine Action est fondamental dans GTD et la plupart des gens ont souvent l'impression d'être familiers de la chose. En pratique, c'est une autre histoire.

16 juin 2017
Covey vs. Allen : Complémentarité ou Contradiction

Les "7 Habitudes" et GTD sont deux méthodologies complémentaires qui s'enrichissent l'une l'autre.

5 juin 2017
L'open space stimule la créativité...

L'open space est une entrave majeure à la productivité des personnes en entreprise. Certaines ont trouvé une parade ingénieuse...

24 mai 2017
Un Jour, Peut-être : la liste GTD au potentiel infini

En bon praticien GTD, vous avez une liste de choses que vous aimeriez faire, un jour, peut-être. La fameuse liste « Un Jour / Peut-être » qui porte bien son nom. Comment s'en servir efficacement ?

7 mai 2017
GTD et Pomodoro

Il est également possible d’utiliser d’autres méthodes de productivité avec GTD, notamment lorsqu’il s’agit d’aider à la concentration (Pomodoro). C’est ce point qui va nous intéresser aujourd’hui.

18 avril 2017
GTD : La revue (hebdo) express

La Revue Hebdomadaire est un incontournable de la méthode GTD. C'est également une des habitudes les plus délicates à mettre en place et à conserver dans le temps. Sa durée est souvent invoquée comme le frein principal par les personnes qui s'y mettent.

3 avril 2017
Gouvernance en Holacracy : le mieux est l'ennemi du bien

La réunion de gouvernance, pilier de l'holacratie, permet à chacun d'oeuvrer individuellement au résultat commun.

7 mars 2017
Holacracy: what about the people?

Holacracy is often critiqued for being inhumane. This is a false statement, in that Holacracy doesn't apply to human relationships. We've been running Holacracy for 2,5 years, here's how it went for us.

4 janvier 2017
Holacratie : et l'humain dans tout ça ?

La plupart des commentaires à charge contre l'holacratie mentionne un caractère "non humain". Or, les rapports humains n’ont rien à voir avec la façon de travailler ensemble. Voyons pourquoi.

18 avril 2016
GTD... de A à Z ! ou la technique de l'alphabet

La méthode GTD demande d'identifier clairement la prochaine action et le résultat final de tous nos projets. À cette fin, l'alphabet peut être une analogie efficace.

7 octobre 2015
Du changement à l'évolution

J'ai toujours été fasciné par le pouvoir des mots. Ils appartiennent à la catégorie de ces choses qui peuvent avoir un impact majeur sous des apparences anodines. De ces choses qu'il semble possible de négliger au motif que "vous voyez ce que je veux dire"... quand finalement on n'est pas sûr de bien voir. C'est […]

Certification VeriSelect
Référencé Datadock
Certification Qualiopi
Mentions légales
Politique de confidentialitéConditions générales
Décideurs Magazine
In Excelsis S.A.S. au capital de 10.000 €
26 rue du Commandant René Mouchotte, 75014 Paris
RCS de Paris 810 870 998
TVA intracom FR58810870998
Organisme de Formation Professionnelle n° 11755387575
Distributeur exclusif
Partenaire officiel
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram
%d blogueurs aiment cette page :