Among the organizational and management methods that bring change in the life of companies and bring new horizons to business, holacracy is the subject of particular attention... But also, a lot of fantasies.
In its habit of deciphering the key concepts of balanced leadership, the EVE webmagazine investigated, to find out what it is exactly, where it comes from, how it is set up, what are the direct and indirect effects of holacracy.
A neologism for a philosophy inherited from the Socratic era (and passed by Descartes)
The notion of holacracy has its roots in theories from the 1960s, developed in particular by the British essayist Arthur Koestler. This enthusiast of the powers of informality, experimentation and the " spirit " of a collective speaks of holarchy, in his book The Ghost in the Machine.
This title refers directly to the notion developed by the behaviorist Gilbert Ryle in the 1940s : the " ghost in the machine " is the immaterial substance without which the mechanics of a body cannot function.
For Ryle, it is " the mind ", as Descartes conceives it, and to denounce a serious error of interpretation in the reading of the father of critical thought when we distinguish between body and mind. These are not two distinct identities, which are in tension or in search of reconciliation ; but an organic and interdependent whole.
This idea of the " whole " is precisely the one contained in the Greek root " holos" in holacracy . This organic approach to the individual as well as the collective (which are no more in duality than the body and the mind) has good reasons to choose a Greek etymology. For it is already found in Aristotle's cosmogonic vision: the philosopher of the quintessence thinks of the congruence of the elements that make up the universe made possible by the indispensable intervention of a higher " essence ", an " ether " that diffuses the soul of the " whole ".
An " ecological " organization
Rich in so many inspirations, the concept of holacracy is defined as an " ecological " organizational system, which has collective intelligence as a rare resource (a sort of " quintessence " of the group) and implements it in organizational conditions favorable to its preservation and the release of its value-creating power.
The organization is no longer perceived as a framework for distributing the functions necessary for the activity but as a living organism in itself. The first consequence is that the organization governs itself instead of being governed by individuals with statutory legitimacy to make decisions, orchestrate work, define and enforce processes, etc. The collective is a force for proposal and decision-making, including with regard to its own ways of operating.
What do we expect from it?
From this self-regulation of the group by the group, we expect many benefits, all of which are sheltered under the key issue of agility : more creativity (minds feel authorized to express themselves), more responsiveness (when the right to act is no longer a mandate attached to a person but the intelligence of each person's situations), more fluidity (the confrontation of points of view allows a dialogue favorable to a better understanding of the subjects), more dynamics (the deverticalization of relationships makes it possible to multiply the paths of exchange), more adaptability (the autonomy of the group makes it possible to change its own way of operating as the environment changes), more development of the skills of un.es and others (when individuals are in a position to exercise all their abilities and reveal new ones) and the fertilization of an intrapreneurial spirit conducive to innovation...
In addition to these benefits of agility, there are expected effects in terms of well-being at work (the burdens of the hierarchical relationship are disappearing) and commitment (more participation promotes better involvement in projects), employer attractiveness (the promise of a flexible, empowering and stimulating daily work day can make a difference on the talent market, etc.).
When it's holocracy, anything goes ?
Deverticalization, autonomy, promotion of initiative, flexibility... Does this mean that we do what we want in holacracy ? Almost, yes, as long as you respect the rules of the game. These were precisely defined by entrepreneur Brian J. Robertson, author of the bestseller Holacracy – The New Management System That Redefines Management, published in 2001.
Under the term Constitution, Robertson refers to the laws that apply to all individuals in the holacratic universe, regardless of their status, their seniority... The hierarchy hands over all its powers of subordination to the Constitution. The first rule of the game consists in building the rules of the game together, so the collective writing of the Constitution is in theory the first holacratic act.
Nevertheless, to allow the organizations that engage in the process to accelerate its implementation, Robertson indicates in a second book published in 2010, some methodological orientations : no more statutes, we move on to the Roles, which are not attached to the people but are the result of the collective decision to entrust the " charge " to an individual designated for a given time and in a given situation, with a defined mission. The " Persons in Charge of the Role " have the responsibility of " processing " the " tensions " and " responsibilities" (duties towards the collective and the project). In other words, their position obliges them as a priority to preserve the holacratic ecology. Then, they are the architects of the " Project Process", in responsibility for " directing Attention and Resources and steering the " Next-Actions " ; in short, to move the work forward! The Constitution also provides for " Circles " which are as many places of the " Link ", where ideas and points of view are expressed and where decisions are made.
We can go into a higher level of detail by reading Robertson's prose in extenso , but we will remember to begin by saying that holacracy has decidedly nothing to do with anarchy and that it is on the contrary an extremely subtle model of organization, which requires a lot of discipline.
Management is dead, long live leadership Role !
As we have understood, the manager no longer " is ": he disappears in favor of the " Person in Charge of the Role " who has functions close to those understood by management. But no longer the authority that went with it. It is therefore useless to try to convert one's stripes acquired in a traditional context to pre-empt the "Roles Charges " and even less to hope to take one's turn as a " little leader " in this way.
Because the qualities necessary for the " Role Load " are anything but those of a bossy boss : he or she is required to have solid soft skills such as humility, the ability to look back on oneself, the ability to doubt usefully, an art of animation freed from the taste of one's own visibility, An influential charisma but also free of ego, emotional and relational intelligence, empathy and adaptability to people and situations, and above all open-mindedness to spare ! In short, balanced and inspiring leadership.
And in reality, does it exist ?
On paper, the proposal is attractive. Apart from those who have the irreducible taste for undivided command and would aspire to responsibilities only to cynically enjoy the power to narrow others, who will not be seduced by the holacratic model?
But in practice, can we get rid of all our old organizational patterns, with what they certainly have that is heavy (pressure, tensions, frustrations...) for each of us, but also what they contain that is reassuring (fixed rules, in particular), or even advantageous (we are not that bad in a managerial position in a vertical organization, can we say to ourselves when the time comes to give up certain attributes of the function!) ?
However, more and more experiments carried out in companies demonstrate the feasibility of a deverticalized organization project. In an interview with Claude Philoche, Head of the Business Innovation & Oversight division in Engie's Global Energy Management unit, we present the experience of the French energy giant. The examples of Gore Tex, Antonutti Delmas in the transport sector, certain teams at Castorama, the online retailer Zappos, etc. are also frequently cited.
What is the outcome for the companies that try it?
Organizations that are moving to holacracy, either globally or in experimental pilot mode, testify to the benefits of the experience in terms of adapting work to the reality on the ground, accelerating transformation, emerging hidden talents and awakening the capacity for innovation of individuals and teams...
Such profits that some finally gave up on their holacratic project because it was succeeding too well, and especially too quickly. Indeed, the transition from a traditional model to an alternative organization raises questions of rhythm. The very logic of holacracy carries with it a powerful acceleration of change, which can offend, or even outright antagonize, those who have found their place in a context operating with other rules of the game and find it difficult to embark on another path. The halts to holacratic experiments therefore often originate from a rise in fears and resistance.
Other experiments have come up against perverse phenomena of infiltration of traditional codes into holacratic functioning: thus, for example, " People in Charge of Roles " have seen their power not diminished by the loss of the classic status of manager but increased by the addition to the preserved aura of their previous position of additional capacities for influence and authority. at the risk of autocratic excesses.
Critical observers of holacracy also point to psycho-social risks induced by a certain loss of reference points and a responsibility that is too heavy with pressure and can lead to over-commitment.
An approach to transform, more than a method to be implemented
However, all the criticisms of holacracy lead to the same conclusions : Robertson's method has its limits (due to its complexity of implementation and its very liberal inspiration, which ultimately leaves little room for the vulnerabilities of individuals), but the approach it takes is a step in the right direction. transform through shared questioning of structures and codes and by opening up possibilities that can allow everyone to assert their potential in all their diversity.
As far as questioning is concerned, it is mainly management that he or she is addressing, inviting him or her to rethink his or her legitimacy and contribution to the collective. One of the major challenges for the manager is to inspire confidence in getting teams on board, by keeping the promises of a more flexible, fluid and inclusive work organization.
It is in this organization that is open to diversity and capable of identifying, valuing and developing the multiple skills of employees that the leader is able to build a meaningful work environment inhabited by the collective energy necessary for painless change and value-creating innovation.
