Organizing Principles

On Gary Hamel’s WSJ Management blog he recently asked:

So, dear reader, what advice would you give to Drew? What have you learned about turning followers into leaders—and then leading the leaders? And is it possible to dis-integrate an organization without fragmenting it?

I provide an answer worth sharing here:

The best framework I’ve seen for turning “followers into leaders” and then “leading the leaders” is Holacracy. In Holacracy the organization is structured in ‘circles’, which I believe align with your “communities of passion” idea. In each circle there is a “lead link” which is accountable for carrying the larger vision to the circle and setting boundaries to the circle’s action. However, within the circle the lead link has no more authority for settings the roles, accountabilities, policies, and activities than any other member of the circle.

Any circle member can bring a proposal to a “governance meeting” where the actual operating practices of the circle are changed. These proposals must go through a facilitated process and have objections integratedbefore being accepted by the Circle. In this process the facilitator treats the Lead Link in exactly the same manner as other circle members. The process does not seek consensus. No one can “second” or “agree with” a proposal. All perspectives are treated non-personally, as a perspective of the circle, instead of the individual egos.

This practice creates true self-organization; but it does not allow for self-direction. Let me explain: the cells in our body are self-organizing, each fully autonomous with respect to it’s internal functioning. However, when a cell becomes self-directing, acting without regard for the larger whole, we call it Cancer. The same must go for groups in an organization. They must have the autonomy to freely control their internal functioning, while at the same time working in concert with the larger whole. Holacracy provides concrete practices for achieving this in a formal way. It is the best answer I’ve found to your question about “disintegrating” without “fragmenting”.

The main point worth emphasizing is the need for organizational groups to have two things given to them:

1. An aim that serves the larger whole
2. The autonomy to freely work toward that aim

Point 1 has an importan corollary: groups also need boundaries. They need to know what is not part of their aim. Groups do need to have a say into what their aim should be, but that decision must be made by the next higher level of organization to ensure that the group is not acting counter to the larger vision and strategy. In Holacracy each Circle is given a voice in this decision through a “Representative Link”. A person from the affected circle sits on the next higher level circle and has the same opportunity to make proposals as other circle members. 

These two links, the “Lead Link” and the “Rep Link” form the necessary bi-directional connection between groups to effectively de-centralize or “disintegrate” and organization without resulting in chaotic fragmentation.