Distributing authority through governance and resolving tensions that would otherwise deplete the organization are two major features of Holacracy, and they are articulated through words, structures, process, sacred meetings, and concrete tools.
Processing Tensions
August 30, 2010 - 6:01pm
Have you ever worked in or with an organization, and felt some tension about the way things were done? Perhaps you saw an opportunity for improvement, or an endemic challenge that needed attention – in the organization’s actions, policies, processes, strategy, or structure? It’s hard to imagine someone who hasn’t. In organizational life we often sense potential futures that are different from present reality, and would be a step forward in some way. But then what? What can you do with these “tensions” you sense?
In the typical organization the answer is “very little” – at least with most of the tensions we sense. You’re doing pretty well if you can address a few of the high-priority ones, and unless you’re at the top you have little influence in the organization’s structure, strategy, processes, or policies. Yet what a lost opportunity – we humans have an incredible capacity to sense tensions, but we usually don’t have a forum to go to where we can reliably process those tensions into something useful. So the organization loses one of its most powerful forces for evolution, and we humans are forced to hold the tensions – in our minds and our bodies – where they fester into frustrations and eventually apathy or burnout.
So, what new capacities could an organization harness if anyone who sensed any tension, anywhere in the organization, could rapidly process it into some kind of positive change? That’s evolution in action, one tension at a time. I think getting to this state is the challenge of any organization that wishes to truly harness the power of an evolutionary approach to doing its work in the world.
What exactly will this take? Holacracy’s approach is first to shift the top-down power structure to a distributed control system embedded within a fractal structure – one which allows self-organization at every level of scale, so most tensions can be processed locally. It also adds conduits in and out of each team or “cell” of this fractal organization, so tensions that can’t be processed locally can be channeled to a cell or organ that can process them. Within each cell we use different forums for processing different tensions, with each forum focused on reaching a different type of output. Some tensions are best resolved by taking action, others require changing the pattern or structure of how we work together, and others lead to adjustments in our broader strategic direction. Each forum has a unique process and decision-making criteria, tailored to do the type of work it is meant for – so we’re not stuck trying to use a single regular meeting with an ill-defined generic process to address everything. This overall approach is anchored by a constitution that defines these and other details of this new “organizational operating system” for an evolution-powered organization.
So, what do people in your organization do with the tensions they sense? To what extent do they trust that every tension they experience has a place to go, where it will get processed quickly and effectively into organizational evolution?
HolacracyOne offers training and support in the Holacracy™ organizational operating system, including a licensing and sales-support program for professional consultants. Learn more via www.holacracy.org or contact us to start a dialog.
If you liked this post, share it:
Comments
Aug 31 2010 - 5:29pmMichael Dobbins writes:
>To continue to try to be "responsible" for an unresponsive system, over and over, would be pure insanity
My favorite Einstein quote: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Sep 22 2010 - 5:25amBernard Marie Chi... writes:
Brian, i think that sensing and then processing the tensions is the major driver for dynamic steering and holacracy: let 's face reality, follow the tension, it will guide your organization towards a higher purpose not decided by human ego but pushed hard by evolutionary impulse.
So many companies don't process tensions: consequence is demotivation, tiredness, disengagement, burn-out, apathy, lack of initiative, fear, etc. . Which only means that organization is not facing reality.
The issue there is NOT a PEOPLE ISSUE: it is a GOVERNANCE ISSUE, it is about changing HABITS, letting LIFE FLOWS. Dynamic Steering by sensing and processing the tensions is the issue in respect to life: a new living entity, the organization, wants to emerge, grow & develop like a tree . Facing reality is consciously letting and supporting this growing tree on his own path without any project (projection) for it.
And the good news, as a CONSEQUENCE - but NOT as an Objective - is that the people will feel better ... So It is not a question of people care, it is a governance issue & this indirectly will be the best way of taking care of people.
Philadelphia, Bernard Marie Chiquet
Sep 22 2010 - 10:34amGuest writes:
This assumes the people at the top are willing to give up their top-down strategies, power, policy-making, et al. What kind of response would you most likely get from Steve Jobs and Apple about this, who by the way runs one of the most profitable companies in the world? Their response would most likely be: if it ain't broke don't fix it. And they're not going to throw Jobs under the bus to prove a point.
My consulting experience is: you have to do an incredibly thorough and meticulous job of needs to services matching, to determine if an organization has a "goodness of fit" with various "under consideration" paradigm changes. If there's a poor match, you gracefully walk away with a clear understanding from both parties that this is best for all concerned. Then graciously open the door for other ways of approaching the uniqueness of the organization with strategies that will work better, all the while not being afraid to give your companions and even your competitors the business - as long as it better serves the client/company. The mantra is: goodness of fit. Once this is in place, then onward with gusto! :-)
Add comment
About the Author
Brian Robertson
Brian is an experienced entrepreneur, CEO, and organizational pioneer. His work with Holacracy™ has found international support within both the conventional business world and cutting-edge movements and thought-leaders.
Other Recent Posts
Connect with Us
Join Our Mailing List
Receive updates about Holacracy-related content, events, and news.
Permission to share, publish, or distribute this blog post is granted under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States license. For details or for a summary of key terms, please see this page.
Another good post Brian. The point this raises for me is that I frequently hear a call that "we just need people to take more responsibility for their choices and actions". But what this post points out, is that even the most responsible person is limited by the "forums" available to them in the organization they are part of.
If someone wants to take action and make change, but there is no one to listen, then even the most responsible individual will eventually choose apathy, burnout, or leave the organization. Wouldn't these be the only sane choices? To continue to try to be "responsible" for an unresponsive system, over and over, would be pure insanity.
Unfortunately, that is often exactly what is asked of people in individual evaluations and reviews today.