Chris Norton – Cassels Brock
I have picked enough on Holacracy in the last few days but I want to ask one further question. What research did the founders do to arrive at this marvellous new management theory?
- Did they subject it to a rigorous analysis by their peers?
- Did they test out assumptions in small scale before testing it on a whole company?
- Did they compare results between companies or before and after implementation?
OK, that’s more than one question but really, why are so many management theories based on untested ideas? And why are so many people willing to listen to so much untested bumpf and even more, why are they willing to pay so much money to inexperienced consultants who sling this stuff around like they are gods of strategy?
Like many others I have fallen prey to many a new idea and then been disappointed by the results. I don’t mean to rant but you might stop for a second and ask yourself; why are you doing what you do?
- How do you know it’s the best way to get results?
- How will it affect those with whom you work?
- How can it be improved?
- How will you know if you are getting it right?
And when I start spouting off on some new theory, ask me those same questions. I have a friend who shall remain nameless (Chris Norton) who has asked me those questions for close to 40 years. It is an endearing quality of his and I’m thankful often that many years ago he asked me a question like that. His question pops into my mind on a regular basis.
How can you prove that?
That’s a great question! The answer to that question sets Holacracy apart from many other methods. The first thing to understand is that Holacracy is not a theory. It’s not a movement, a philosophy, a set of principles… it’s none of that. Instead it’s a practice, and it has evolved as one, through experimentation and trial and error.
Holacracy is all about improving your organization through incremental steps by testing your changes against reality, see if they work, and adapt again (similar to Agile). The beauty of Holacracy, in my opinion, is that Holacracy itself has been developed by following a similar process. No one has designed a “theory of Holacracy” and has then proceeded to apply it with a method. Instead, it was started as a minimal method by borrowing from other models and methods, trying them out, and keeping them or removing them based on whether they worked. Brian Robertson explains the formative influences of Holacracy in this Youtube video: http://youtu.be/h2lFqeJZN0g
So it’s inaccurate to say that Holacracy is a “management theory based on untested ideas”. Holacracy is not a theory, and it’s developed only through testing. Because of that, it’s in a constant state of evolution — the Holacracy constitution is currently in its version 4.0. That also means it’s never “complete”. Holacracy is an experiment, constantly refined and improved, but an experiment nonetheless.
Like all experiments, there is a higher risk in jumping in early on. The most audacious and visionary — Medium, Zappos, etc. — will take that risk because they understand the pay off. Others will wait and see before dipping their toes, and that’s perfectly fine too. Your friend’s question “How can you prove that?” is useful insofar as it focuses our attention where the rubber meets the road. But with social experiment as complex as organizations, you can *never* 100% prove a causal relationship. Only in the world of theory can we request that something be fully proven before we adopt it. In real life, we have to act despite uncertainty, and there is always a risk. There is higher and lower levels of risk, and that’s for everyone to assess for themselves.
We at HolacracyOne are not forcing anyone to adopt Holacracy (!). I don’t know where you would have heard anyone at HolacracyOne “sling this stuff around like they are gods of strategy”. I don’t know whether you are falling prey a little too easily to the image portrayed by the media, or whether you’re trying to depict Holacracy and HolacracyOne under a negative light so that it’s easier to attack, but these insinuations strike me as dishonest. If anything, we try to be measured and explain how Holacracy isn’t a silver bullet ( http://youtu.be/gltN3NuY5dc ).
Olivier
Thanks for the interesting exchange. In the end, I think what matters is whether Holacracy enables companies to execute strategy more effectively. I will be interested to follow your progress to see if you can make it stick.
While we can’t ever have 100% causal relationships, I hope that we can do a better job in finding some correlation between what we are doing and the results we are getting. I spend a lot of time researching management practices and finding out what works in companies. This has greatly influenced what I do, eliminating some early assumptions and changing how I’m approaching the subject of execution.
My rant about theories based upon untested ideas was not specifically aimed at Holacracy but I did wonder how you had arrived at this org design. What I find most disturbing are consultants and management practitioners who are ready to leap on the latest bandwagon without any testing to see whether the new practice will bring results. We are playing with peoples lives when we make changes and for their sake it is important to ensure that we aren’t making them worse off from what we are doing. That’s why I’m a big believer in evidence based management over values based management.
I resonate a lot with your skepticism about new theories — in management or any other field, for that matter. That’s precisely why I was attracted in Holacracy in the first place; because it’s not a theory. Interestingly, if you look at the Holacracy Constitution, you will find no mention of “values” anywhere.
I also agree with an evidence-based approach — maybe where I diverge is in how to gather evidence. Holacracy is very close to agile development practices in that sense, in the way that it aims for being useful and valuable not by implementing a grand design and then conducting a full study of the results, but instead through very fast iterations that allow quick feedback loops from reality (i.e., evidence).