These notes are an outline of the content
that was covered at a Taster workshop in San Fran given by Margaret Ryan of yWonderWorks.com to share with others and for reference.
Overview – Holacracy Basics and Key Concepts
·
Purpose
– Our purpose as a company must be
clearly defined as a first step. It
guides us to what we prioritize. Holacracy is all based on and centered
around purpose – the company’s and that of individual roles. (Example
purpose: Create together the tools that
improve quality of life.) One clear,
simple sentence is ideal.
·
The Goal
of Holacracy – Anything, sensed by
anyone, anywhere in the company, is rapidly and reliably processed into
meaningful change (if relevant to the purpose).
·
Holacracy is:
o
One set of rules for everyone.
o
Operating on a set of practices, not theories.
o
A systematic set of meetings to sync members and
create accountabilities.
o
Integration
of perspectives and distribution of autocratic authority through governance
meetings. (Ex: John is in charge of newsletters and can make
all decisions about them, but must integrate the opinions of Susan and Sarah as
contributors)
o
A bias
toward action in iterations (not perfection). Instead of planning, process tension,
determine next action, do, repeat. Not
using scenarios.
·
Tension
–
o
Definition: The felt-sense of a specific gap
between the current reality and a sensed potential.
o
Tensions
are not negative, but are a gap between what is and what could be.
o
There is great
power in processing tensions and processing them is a focus of Holacracy. Many times they can be relieved by simple
expression and asking, “is there something needed to resolve that
tension?” Note the answer and confirm
resolved.
o
Tensions are processed in organized settings
including tactical meetings and governance meetings.
o
Any tension is trumped by policy and
agreements. Some initial agreements
should be required to join/participate.
Can include in employee handbook.
§
Great examples of agreements to include are the
purpose statement and having an open mind.
·
Dynamic
Steering –
o
Main focus is to keep things iterating forward. Rather than holding off for a grand plan,
take the next step.
o
Deliver in fast, small increments and get
feedback.
o
Delay decisions to the last responsible
moment – address each role holder’s opinion.
o
Any issue can be revisited at any time.
o
Based on agile
methodology. Check reality, true up,
deal with daily.
Groundwork
·
Every tension that we face is one of two things:
o
A problem
to solve
§
Not going, have an end point, and can be solved.
o
A polarity
to leverage
§
Ongoing, no end point, not solvable, always
contain mutually inclusive opposites. Examples:
Cost and Quality, Individual and Team, Compete and Collaborate, etc.
o
As an organization, our goal is to leverage all talents of the individual and collective.
§
We need a balance of all of these energies – our
own fit. We don’t want to only encourage
one extreme or the other.
§
Honor polarities and have them play well in the
sandbox.
§
Holacracy reduces fear by integrating perspectives
and incorporating many practices that support the team.
§
Holacracy
shines a light on both extremes and creates balance by integrating both.
Picture: Leveraging Polarities. This describes the flow when extremes are in
balance. If one is over emphasized, the
energy can plunge down into fear.
“I
believe the central leadership attribute is the ability to manage polarity.”
–Peter Koestenbaum
·
Clear roles
and accountabilities are a key component of Holacracy.
o
All role holders consciously prioritize what
needs to be done.
o
People self-police. In Holacracy, we trust them to do so.
o
The system is intricate in design (see details
in “Structure/Roles” section below).
There is no single point of
failure.
Structure/Roles
·
Each role has these items defined:
o
Purpose (one sentence)
o
Accountabilities –
§
What you are expected to take care of
§
All must end in “ing”
o
Domain (optional) - This is only used if someone
has total ownership over something so much so that no one else can touch
it. (Example: Website changes are under the domain of a
website manager.)
·
General
Company Circle (GCC) –
o
The GCC is composed of those that currently
manage our company – executives.
·
Sub-Circles
–
o
Each functional area or product has its own
sub-circle.
o
Circles pull what they need rather than
assignments being push based.
·
Governance
– To dynamically steer, governance must be: distributed, evolutionary, focused
on the present, grounded in the organizations purpose.
o
Sets up roles and accountabilities (does not
associate to particular people)
·
Lead Link
– Represents the team in the GCC.
o
There is one Lead Link per circle. This person is a member of the GCC
(management).
o
Allocates the circle’s resources
o
Assigns people to the roles that are defined by
Governance. Monitors the fit for the
role, provides feedback to enhance the fit, and removes partners from roles.
o
Ensures the circle delivers on its purpose. Assesses and defines priorities and
strategies for the circle.
o
Defines and assigns metrics for the circle.
o
Cannot add accountabilities (done by governance)
o
There is a lead link for each sub-circle and one
for the GCC. The GCC Lead Link assigns
the sub-circle lead links.
·
Rep Link
– Represents the team in the GCC (avoids misrepresentation due to being elected
in).
o
There is one Rep Link per circle. This person is voted in by members of the
circle for periods of 3, 6, 9, or 12 months.
o
Speaks up to GCC for unresolved tensions. Helps to process.
·
Facilitator
o
There is one Facilitator per circle. This person is voted in for periods of 3, 6,
9, or 12 months.
o
Ensures the meeting follows the process.
o
Stops cross-talk and discussions.
o
Guides the time during meetings.
o
This person can also have another role but must
be neutral to the topics being discussed.
o
Helps to make sure that the person with
authority is involved in the discussion/decision. Projects are added to the correct person with
accountability.
o
Asks the secretary to look at records to
identify who is responsible when not known.
o
If no one is responsible, suggests to take the
item to governance.
o
Drives people toward the next step with the
right people to decide.
o
Guides the tension holder to decide the
resolution.
·
Secretary
o
There is one Secretary per circle. This person is voted in for periods of 3, 6,
9, or 12 months.
o
Has access to the database and provides answers
when asked during meetings.
o
Takes notes of all action items, votes, etc.
during meetings. Inputs them into
system. Distributes them to the team.
·
Misc. Notes:
o
Action items are typically assigned to the
person that brought up the tension. (Ex:
Need to schedule a meeting? They
schedule it.)
o
Action items are entered into the project list
they are associated with in AtTask.
o
Each person is responsible for following up on their
own action items. Self police.
o
Elections can be requested at any governance
meeting.
o
It is key for the CEO to understand what
distributed authority is and to give others authority for their
accountabilities.
o
CEO can move into roles that are needed to
energize the company and they enjoy doing such as speaking, sourcing
acquisitions, etc. They focus on their
role.
Meetings
·
Meetings
are the method by which all sensory inputs are collected. By running them in an organized manner, each
voice can be heard.
·
Meetings
centered around making the team aware of tensions and addressing the next step
toward resolving the tension.
·
A neutral facilitator is key to making this
work. This role will require
training.
·
Meetings are not mandatory but everyone is encouraged
to show up.
·
When things get heated, take a “Process Time
Out”. Someone can leave if they feel
heated and may not add value.
·
Each circle has their own tactical and
governance meetings. Some circles can
have them less often than others. The
GCC typically has tactical meetings once per week and governance meetings once
per month.
Tactical Meetings (for Operations)
·
Tactical meetings are typically held
weekly. There is one for the GCC and
another per circle.
·
Tactical Meetings Process
o
Check in Round (Get Present)
§
Sacred space
§
Each person notices where their attention is and
lets it go
§
No cross talk
o
Administrative Concerns (Clarify Timing)
§
Time allowed for meeting, breaks (if applicable)
o
Checklist Review (Transparency)
§
Facilitator reads checklist of recurring actions
by role.
§
Participants respond “check” or “no check”. There is no discussion here.
§
First item is “Weekly review done” or “systems
in place” (Each person confirms they are caught up on all information including
checking emails and team reports)
§
Any other critical items that should be
confirmed prior to starting (and can alter in frequency of weekly such as email
blast sent).
o
Metrics Review (Visibility – where we are now)
§
Each role assigned a metric states their one #
§
Is future focused, not accounting history
§
Reports are written and linked for viewing but
not reviewed as a group in detail
o
Project Updates (Communication)
§
Facilitator reads each project on the circle’s
project board and asks “any updates”
§
Project owners respond “no updates” or progress
since last meeting. No general status
reports, just updates.
§
Facilitator asks each member if they have any
projects to add at this time. Secretary
notes the projects.
§
Each should be worded as a past tense, completed
project (such as “New team member hired”)
o
Agenda Building (Placeholders)
§
Go around in a circle and each member states any
tensions that they have – in 2-3 word phrases.
These phrases are just place holders to discuss in the future and just
need to be recognizable by the person that wants to bring them up. If none, just say “none”.
§
Facilitator notes the tensions as agenda items
to discuss.
§
No discussion happens yet.
o
Triage Issues (Process Tensions)
§
To process each tension:
·
Facilitator reads one tension from the list and
asks the tension holder “what do you need to resolve your
tension?”
o
Resolutions of tensions (examples):
§
Do something
·
Share something that was not listed on the
agenda
·
Have an open discussion (if more than a few
minutes, ask to continue in separate meeting)
·
Discuss in a smaller meeting with required
parties
·
Capture next action step
·
Capture project
·
Share appreciation or feedback
·
Have a reaction round to something they want to
share
§
Work differently
·
Governance meeting (if this is a pattern, bring
it to a governance meeting)
§
Change course
·
Strategy meeting
§
Change context
·
Rep link to broader circle
·
Agenda item owner engages others as-needed.
·
Secretary captures any next-actions or projects
requested and accepted
·
Facilitator asks tension holder, “Did you get
what you need?”
§
The facilitator must make sure all agenda items
are processed in the allotted time.
Allow time on each accordingly.
§
Facilitator is seeking to guide the tension
holder to identify the next action, not resolve the tension for all time. Rapidly and reliably process all tensions to
clarify next action and movement forward.
o
Closing Round (Harvest Learning)
§
Each person may share a closing reflection about
the meeting. No discussion.
Governance Meetings
·
Governance meetings are typically held
monthly. There is one for the GCC and
another per circle.
·
Governance Meetings Process
o
Check in Round (Get Present)
§
Sacred space
§
Each person notices where their attention is and
lets it go
§
No cross talk
o
Administrative Concerns (Clarify Timing)
§
Time allowed for meeting, breaks (if applicable)
o
Agenda Building (Placeholders)
§
Go around in a circle and each member states any
tensions that they have – in 2-3 word phrases and rates their topic (3-1). These phrases are just place holders to discuss
in the future and just need to be recognizable by the person that wants to
bring them up. If none, just say
“none”. Ranking: 3 – greatest priority for you to complete, 2
– medium, 1 – low priority.
§
Facilitator notes the tensions as agenda items to
discuss.
§
No discussion happens yet.
o
Integrative
Decision Making Process:
§
Present Proposal
·
Proposer speaks – describes tension and states
proposal to resolve it.
·
No discussion.
Proposer can request discussion to help craft a starting proposal, but
not build consensus or integrate concerns.
·
Stated as “ING” (ex: Accessing)
·
If only a problem is stated, facilitator asks,
“Do you have a starting proposal?”
§
Clarifying Questions
·
Anyone can ask a clarifying question (not give
reaction, only ask question)
·
Proposer answers or states “not specified” (in
the proposal)
·
No discussions/reactions/cross talk
§
Reaction Round
·
Everyone except for the proposer states their
reaction, one at a time (go around the circle) or states “no reaction”
·
If someone asks a new question, it’s not
answered
·
No discussions/reactions/cross talk
§
Amend and Clarify
·
Proposer can optionally clarify the intent of
the proposal, further amend based on reaction, or leave as-is.
·
No discussions/reactions/cross talk
§
Objection Round
·
The facilitator asks each person in turn, “Do
you see any reasons why adopting this proposal would cause harm or move us
backwards”
·
Each person states “objection” or “no objection”
·
If there is an objection, it is tested and
captured without discussion or cross talk.
·
Note, most objections are not valid. The facilitator will test it out (see
below). This is the hardest step to
learn for a facilitator.
·
An objection is valid if:
o
The proposal would degrade the Circle’s capacity
§
Is there a reason this causes harm or moves us
backward? How? (valid)
§
…Or is it a better idea or something else we
should consider as well? (if so, this is a tension, not objection – and
therefore should be brought up in agenda as separate item)
o
The proposal specifically creates the Objection
§
Would that issue be created by adopting this
proposal? How? (valid)
§
… Or is it already an issue, even if we don’t
adopt this proposal? (if so, this is a tension, not objection – and therefore
should be brought up in agenda as separate item)
o
The objection is either based on presently-known
data or is necessarily predictive because we can’t adapt later
§
Is that based on presently known data? (valid)
§
… Or are you anticipating what might happen (see
below)
·
If anticipated, is there a reason we can’t adapt
once we get more data? (valid)
·
… Or is it safe enough to try, knowing we can
revisit it at any time (not valid)
o
The objection would be a valid tension for your
role to process
§
Does it limit one of your roles? Which one?
·
Share a concrete example of when this got in the
way of you energizing one of your roles. (valid)
§
…Or are you trying to help another role in the
circle (not valid)
o
The proposal breaks the rules of the Holacracy
Constitution
§
Example:
NVGO – Not Valid Governance Output
-
·
Accountabilities must be ongoing activities that
start with an –ing verb. Not action
steps or projects (those are handled in tactical meetings).
·
Additional question to help objector realize the
validity of their objection – “knowing this proposal is not allocating any resources,
assigning roles, prioritizing work, and/or determining organizational talent,
is it safe enough to try, knowing you can revisit it at any time?
·
Valid Objection Categories:
o
Causes harm
o
Moves us backwards
o
Degrades clarity
o
NVGO
o
Outside Circle’s authority
§
Integration
§
Each person may share a closing reflection about
the meeting. No discussion.
Strategy Meetings
·
Rare – used when a strategy is needed to be
determined
Special Topic Meetings
·
Meetings that are one-off for a specific topic
·
Must know who has the accountability for the
topic first and make sure they are there
·
Before start, must be clear who says when the
meeting is over/done
Next Steps/Recommendations
·
Half
day/Full day workshop on-site for Executives (need to confirm alignment/buy
in before move forward. Need them to be
very aware of what this is we are getting into).
o
After that draft action plan that includes
implementation and team training
·
Dani
o
Review with Jesse – get feedback
o
Review against Tuesday/Thursday Meetings draft
Resources
·
Holacracy Resources
o
http://wonderworksconsulting.com/holacracy-resources
(This is the site of the coach that we learned from. She also helped to facilitate Zappos into
becoming a Holacracy. There is no book
on this, is a blend of online info and coaching.)
·
Great introductory article on Holacracy https://medium.com/undercurrents-greatest-hits/what-is-holacracy-f50cca674f0c
·
Recommended Reading: Getting Things Done by David Allen
·
Glass Frog – Meeting system, searchable database
