Holacracy Is Not the Only Alternative to the Traditional Model

Expert

Raphaël H. Cohen Academic Fellow at the University of Geneva, serial entrepreneur and trainer

The debate over holacracy, presented as an alternative to the traditional management model, remains intense. Often, the conditions are not met; while this model works for certain companies, it is not universal. Moreover, the transition to this mode of operation can be difficult. Consequently, those who adopt holacracy highlight its merits, while those who have not adopted it point out its flaws.

Between the traditional hierarchical model and holacracy (in which decision-making power belongs to employees), there is however a third path. This consists not in power being exercised, but in interactions among people to strengthen psychological safety at work.

It rests on an observation expressed by Peter Drucker, one of the great management thinkers, who said that “culture eats strategy for breakfast”: a dysfunctional team will sabotage a very good plan, whereas a good team will compensate for the weaknesses of a bad one. It allows us to paraphrase him by saying that culture in fact “gobbles up” structure. In other words, before reshaping structures and decision-making processes, one must first deploy an organizational culture.

Each organization has its own culture, but that of a group is always more difficult and subordinate to hierarchy. Some take care to formalize their culture through values, codes of conduct, or charters. Others rely on what is in fact an implicit one. Yet the reality remains collaborative rather than siloed, there, where individual members feel involved, which reduces their level of disengagement.

For this to happen, there are several conditions, first and foremost, those of administration and management, where it is essential to make explicit on what basis and according to what principles behaviors should be governed.

Knowing that the superiors are malevolent will be able to potentially create insecurity in teams who have to respect the rules that their subordinates are not to suffer and that the ADH culture is lived by all at all hierarchical levels, mechanisms must therefore be put in place so as to make it possible. This gives rise to reflected behaviors based on benevolence and psychological safety and some are indispensable, the rare are organizations that do not instaureront.

After having defined the culture of the company, each team is encouraged to develop its own charter according to the legal framework and the one from the company. These charters govern the specific behaviors and objectives of each team, in harmony with the aspirations of the members and their activity.

When employees operate in an environment where the roles involve clearly defined responsibilities, they feel increased psychological safety, which reinforces their level of engagement with up to a 35% increase in performance and profits.

That said, psychological safety, far from communication issues with hierarchy, offers practices more focused on success than a traditional model of subordination to hierarchy. When teams develop harmonious ties, it is easier for them to learn from initiatives and decisions and to modify organizational structures without having previously assessed the social and cultural barriers.

Without upheaving existing structures or decision-making processes, as in the case of holacracy, this third way places emphasis on culture to foster a more attractive work environment, which may possibly favor the transition toward more participatory practices.