Beyond the #holacracy #teal #cyane #agile hipe

In the Harvard Business Review article Beyond the holacracy hype, Ethan Bernstein, John Bunch, Niko Canner and Michael Lee, try  “to gain a more accurate, balanced perspective”  about holacracy and other types of self-managed organizations [-] beyond the buzzwords that describe these structures—“postbureaucratic,” “poststructuralist,” “information-based,” “organic,” and so on”. On twitter and other social media, these self-managed organisations are heavily supported or attacked. This article tries to be more objective and puts pro’s and con’s against each other.

Again I highlight some quotes that summarises their findings.

Two extremes

Most observers who have written about holacracy and other types of self-managed organizations—the latest trend in self-managed teams—take an extreme position, either celebrating these “bossless,” “flat” environments for fostering flexibility and engagement or denouncing them as naive social experiments that ignore how things really get done.

Balance between reliability and adaptability

To better understand the impulse behind self-management models, consider what leaders need most from their organizations: reliability and adaptability. Reliability means many things, such as generating predictable returns for shareholders, adhering to regulations, maintaining stable employment levels, and fulfilling customers’ expectations. So does adaptability: For example, some situations call for many small adjustments in production or manufacturing to meet local needs, while others call for fundamental shifts in strategy or capabilities.

If traditional organizations strive to be machines governed by Newtonian physics, precisely predicting and controlling the paths of individual particles, then self-managing structures are akin to biological organisms, with their rapid proliferation and evolution.


The modularity allows for more plug-and-play activity across the enterprise than in a system where teams sit squarely in particular units and departments. And the teams come and go as employees perceive changes in the organization’s needs (just as task forces and project teams in traditional organizations do, but without the surrounding matrix structure, which has a way of holding ad hoc groups together even after they’re irrelevant).

So the circles [teams] don’t just manage themselves; within those guidelines, they also design and govern themselves.


Leadership responsibilities continually shift as the work changes and as teams create and define new roles.

When someone isn’t a good fit for a role, it’s reassigned to someone else.

This approach to role design gives people room to grow on the job.


“Is the shift from traditional jobs to a larger number of microroles a net benefit? Possibly—but role proliferation has costs, too. It creates three kinds of complexity, all related to human capital”

  1. People grapple with where to focus their attention and how to prioritize and coordinate across circles.
  2. As people assemble their personal portfolios of roles, it becomes difficult to find clear benchmarks or market rates.
  3. Role proliferation complicates hiring, both into the organization and into particular roles.

Old power rules

Rather than run ideas up the flagpole and wait for answers to come back down, individuals go directly to the people who will be affected. Within holacracies, this is known as “going role to role.”

Some people have more power than others, and managers who used to supervise certain activities may at times try to reassert control, making it hard for employees to know whether to follow the new system or listen to their old boss.

It can also be tough for people to “step up” and claim their power.

Another employee, who formerly had a managerial title, talked about how much time he used to spend approving others’ decisions. Since the move to holacracy, he’s had to shift to enabling mode, encouraging individuals to make decisions on their own.

Old power rules can be deeply embedded in culture and institutions and may require continual attention to unravel.

Yet a great deal of evidence shows that efforts to drive change programmatically from the top, solely in response to what senior leaders see, often fail.

Responding to emerging needs in the market

Although it’s important to be close to your customers, it’s also critical to maintain a broader perspective so that you don’t follow them off a cliff.

Get rid of all bosses?

You might assume that the three goals of self-management structures—designing roles that match individual capabilities with organizational goals, making decisions closer to the work, and responding to emerging market needs—would make leaders less relevant. Yet one of the greatest challenges of implementing the goals at scale is insufficient leadership.

Leadership might be even more important in a holacracy than in a traditional management structure. You have to lead by example and round up the troops rather than rely on authority.”


Most organizations, particularly large corporations, should adopt these techniques in part, not in whole. We’d be surprised if more than 20% of the Global 1000 looked “teal” in 2030, to use Frederic Laloux’s term for “whole,” evolutionary, self-managing organizations. But we’d also be surprised if more than 20% didn’t significantly draw on some of the techniques within their corporate frameworks.


Second #agile quote of the day

“Revitalising people has a lot less to do with changing people and has a lot more to do with changing the context, that companies, the senior managers create around their people.”

~ Professor Sumantra Ghoshal, The Smell of the Place.

#Agile quote of the day

“In the video “The Smell of the Place” professor Sumantra Ghoshal offers four examples of smells in organisations. The ones on the left describe “downtown Calcutta in mid summer”, on the right is “Fontainebleau in spring”. In addition, I’ll share some smells that I have interpreted and experienced in organisations.”

  • Constraint versus Stretch
  • Compliance versus Discipline
  • Control versus Support
  • Contract versus Trust
  • Project versus Product
  • Planning versus Prognoses
  • Commitment versus Forecast
  • Resources versus People

~ Zombie Scrum – Symptoms, Causes and Treatment


Up-front #planning or #agile swarming

Do not analyse all detail of your user stories up-front for the next sprint. This is called a mini-waterfall.

Do not develop your user story and then test it. This is also called a mini-waterfall.

Do not split up all your user stories in the sprint planning in tasks. You cannot think of everything up-front. You only need to think of the important things to decide what it take s to put a story in your sprint.

“Considering Backlog Refinement as a “meeting” that includes only the Product Owner and the “Lead Developer”“. Zombie Scrum – Symptoms, Causes and Treatment.

Do as much as needed up-front, elaborate the stories gradually during your sprint and do it as a team. This is called swarming and building up a multi-functional team, where everybody helps each other to jointly reach the sprint goal.

Give me a hoot

Jay Hyett

In the last couple of teams I’ve worked with we’ve had some time critical projects to deliver with extremely tight deadlines to hit. As a Scrum Master or Coach during times like these you need to bring a little something extra, in order to keep people up beat and focused on the tasks at hand.

Something I’ve used during times like I’ve described above is a team hooter (or bike horn). The idea is as you finish a story (or move it to done) then you should press the hooter to let you team mates and the people around you know that we’ve made some progress. This is usually followed by a round of applause from everyone in a show of support.

It’s amazing how infectious something this simple can be and quite interesting how people really do get into it. Just today I had another team ask me where…

View original post 32 more words