Holacracy Basics: Understanding Prioritizations

In every moment, we prioritize. Sometimes we do it consciously. Sometimes not. But in either case, we pay attention to some things at the expense of others.

When it comes to making choices about what to prioritize at work, Holacracy’s rules provide some guidance. So, when faced with a question like, “Should I check my email or sketch out that new design I’ve been thinking about?” it may help to know there is a Constitutional rule that says you should generally prioritize processing messages even over executing on your own work.

But of course, having an explicit rule like that only helps so much. After all, it only says you must “generally” prioritize processing messages; and there are plenty of reasons why checking your email in a given moment would be a bad idea.

This is the challenge with Holacracy-style prioritizations. On one hand, there are clear Constitutional rules (which we’ll get into), and on the other hand, those rules always stop short of actually telling you exactly what to do.

“The challenge is that there is no simple A-B-C, 1–2–3, high-medium-low prioritizing formula that makes much sense in the day-to-day, minute-to-minute real world — though these have been promoted ad nauseam.”

David Allen

To help you make sense of how Holacracy handles prioritizations, here is my list of the things you need to know:

1. “Priority” just means, “most important;” which isn’t the same as telling you when something must get done (i.e. deadline or timeframe), or what resources it might require (i.e. energy, time, or money).
2. Everyone is responsible for making their own prioritizations in each moment (and don’t overlook the “in each moment” part).
3. Everyone can be trusted to make their own prioritizations because they’re also responsible for tracking and regularly reviewing all of their work.
4. There are some standard prioritizations provided in the Constitution which everyone must generally apply.
5. Each role-filler must treat official prioritizations of the circle as more important than their own individual goals.
6. Circle Lead prioritizations are always relative, which includes any explicit deadlines or strategies.
7. Don’t be afraid to openly question a prioritization your role has been given.
8. There’s no perfect formula; instead, use this simple question: “What could I do that would produce the greatest value to the organization?” and then trust others to process their tensions.

#1. Priority means “most important”

“Priority” just means, “most important;” which isn’t the same as telling you when something must get done (i.e. deadline or timeframe), or what resources it might require (i.e. energy, time, or money).

This may seem obvious, but it’s worth explaining. In conventional organizations, saying something is a “priority” usually means something like, “This is so important, get it done as soon as possible.”

But in Holacracy practice, when a Circle Lead says a certain project is a “priority” for the circle, that doesn’t necessarily mean, “Drop everything and do it now!” In fact, technically speaking, a Circle Lead may label a project a priority and have no expectation that the project ever gets completed.*

*Imagine a scenario in which the Circle Lead of the Social Events circle defines “Project X” as a priority for the roles within that circle. But the Circle Lead also knows that everyone’s energy is, consciously and appropriately, going into other roles in other circles for the foreseeable future. Meaning, Project X is the absolute highest priority project among that circle’s current work, AND because work in other circles is relatively more important, Project X will likely never get completed.

And that’s because we use a strict definition of “priority” as equating only to the elements of “importance” or “overall value,” while we temporarily set aside concerns over timelines or available resources, and focus rigidly on the question, “What is the most valuable thing for the organization?”

Strictly speaking, a prioritization doesn’t say when something will get done. A prioritization tells you which outcome is more important relative to the others, but that’s all it tells you. Other factors, like available time or energy, or the context you’re in, will also help determine what you may do at any moment.

So, you could say that Holacracy has just operationalized some distinctions we’re already familiar with. We have distinct rules for requesting that someone work towards a specific outcome (i.e. “project”), requiring them to give you transparency into their progress and next-actions (Duty of Transparency) and transparency into their estimated completion date (i.e. “projection”), and requiring role-fillers to align their attention with the most important work of the organization (“prioritization”).

#2. Everyone is responsible for their own prioritizations

Everyone is responsible for making their own prioritizations in each moment (and don’t overlook the “in each moment” part).

Taking personal responsibility is a core principle of the Holacracy Constitution. This is highlighted specifically in §2.3 (or §4.1.3 if using version 4.1), the Duty of Prioritization, which states, “As a Partner, you have a duty to prioritize your attention…[emphasis added].” This means that essentially, no matter what a Circle Lead, company founder, or “boss” demands from you, ultimately, you’re always responsible for making your own choices.

But, it’s important to pause here. Because this point gets hugely exaggerated and misunderstood by even well-meaning Holacracy practitioners. This does not mean everyone can do whatever they want. Or that there are no consequences for your actions. Saying you’re responsible for your choices is not the same thing as saying you have infinite options.

But it also doesn’t exclude times when you think it makes sense to follow someone’s advice. For example, one choice a role-filler might make is to simply follow the guidance of someone with more experience, but in that case, the role-filler is still the one making that choice. Nothing wrong with that.

“It’s almost impossible to predict the future. But it’s also unnecessary, because most people are living in the past. All you have to do is see the present before everyone else does.”

Jason Crawford

The point is that saying, “you’re responsible for your moment-to-moment choices,” isn’t anything new. Holacracy’s rules aren’t inventing that distinction. We’re always deciding — taking in new information and integrating it into our choices. If I’m at home working on an important project but then my bathroom sink explodes, I’ll set the project aside for a moment.

So just because fixing the typos in the presentation is the highest priority doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll work on that first. Or even exclusively. You’re always responsible for using your own judgment at each moment. That’s all it means.

#3. Everyone is responsible for tracking and reviewing their work

Everyone can be trusted to make their own prioritizations because they’re also responsible for tracking and regularly reviewing all of their work.

There’s no way to ensure everyone will always prioritize the right thing at each moment. Everyone needs the space to make mistakes. But we can limit that available mistake-space. The Constitution, which is our shared set of rules, helps us do this by requiring two things.

First, the Constitution requires that everyone track any current or potential work for any of their roles (§1.2.4). The first step is to determine where the work lives; i.e. which role cares about that issue, or achieving that outcome? This is why we ask the unconventional (and awkward) question, “Does it make sense to you in your role to work toward that outcome?” rather than, “Do you agree that this is a priority?” or “Do you have time to do it?” Those questions can come later (or immediately following if necessary).

The point is, these questions need to be separated using the same logic as to why it’s usually not a good idea to go grocery shopping when you’re hungry (i.e. you’ll usually buy less healthy options). We need a little distance and discipline to prevent our impulses from controlling the show (in this case, that usually means chasing the latest or the loudest thing, whether or not it’s important).

Second, the Constitution requires everyone to regularly review all of their tracked work (§1.2.4). That way, we can trust that everyone is taking time, at least periodically, to get perspective on all of the current and potential work they might do.

This practice of regularly reviewing your list of work is critical. Everyone should be doing this (using their own interpretation and to the best of their ability), because without this habit it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to trust people to make their own moment-to-moment prioritizations.

Now, I hear you saying, “But what if I can’t trust others to be doing this?” Well, that’s actually the point of having an explicit rule. Neither the words themselves, nor anyone’s agreement to them, make anything magically happen. But nor does that mean you have to blindly trust that everyone is regularly reviewing and prioritizing their tracked work. The point is that you can (and should) ask if you have any questions about how or how often someone else is doing their review.

This is why it’s so helpful to have an explicit and shared rule about it; not because it does anything on its own, but it makes getting alignment and clarification so much easier.

#4. Standard prioritizations in the Constitution

There are some standard prioritizations provided in the Constitution which everyone must generally apply.

Even though you’re making the final judgment call, there are some standard guide rails provided in the Constitution. If we go back and look at the Duty of Prioritization, what it actually says is, “As a Partner, you have a duty to prioritize your attention “in alignment with the following…” So, ultimately, you have the authority to prioritize at each moment, but you must do so within the following constraints.

• “You must generally prioritize processing inbound messages to your Roles from other Role Leads over executing your own Next-Actions.” This means that everyone must generally prioritize team communications over doing one’s own work. The key word here is, “generally.” Meaning, use your judgment about when it makes sense to respond to emails and when to keep your head in your own work, but you can’t completely ignore messages from others even if you think your own work is more valuable.
• “You must prioritize attending any meeting defined in this Constitution over executing your own Next-Actions, but only when another Partner explicitly requests this prioritization for a specific meeting.” This means a few things. First, it means, by default, you aren’t required to prioritize attending every tactical and governance meeting for every circle you’re in. Use your judgment. They are often high-value, so people generally go to them, but if you really want to make sure someone prioritizes attending a meeting, then you can point to this rule (also note, this does NOT mean you can ask someone to prioritize attending all meetings; only specific ones).

These two constraints are required to ensure that the needs of fellow circle members are integrated with one’s own. For self-organization to thrive, we need to balance the polarity of autonomy (which is addressed in #2) and alignment (which is addressed by having constraints on that autonomy).

#5. Circle prioritizations trump individual prioritizations

Each role-filler must treat official prioritizations of the circle as more important than their own individual goals.

The Constitution says that when choosing what to work on, you must consider any official prioritizations that the Circle Lead has given your role, as well as any official prioritizations of that role’s circle and super-circles.

Ok, let’s break this down and look at some important keywords.

• “Circle Lead” — How do you know what the circle’s priorities are? Well, the official priorities of a circle can be defined by the Circle Lead of that circle. And just as each role needs to align with its broader circle, each circle needs to align with its super-circle. But since a Circle Lead can only prioritize across things within their scope (i.e. their circle and any sub-circles), partners who fill roles in many different circles, still need to make their own prioritizations across circles. And if more clarity is needed, then the Circle Lead of an even broader circle should be able to provide some clarity.
• “Official” — Role-fillers sometimes unconsciously interpret an official prioritization from a Circle Lead when none was intended. For example, imagine a former manager sharing a strong opinion about a project. If that person also fills a Circle Lead role, it may be easy for others to assume that this was an official prioritization. Maybe it was intended to be. But maybe not. Find out. A simple rule-of-thumb: don’t treat it as an official prioritization unless it’s been explicitly called out as such (e.g. “What’s your official prioritization?” or “This is my official prioritization.”)
• “Treat as more important” — Just because a Circle Lead defines something as a priority, does that mean others must do it? No, not necessarily. Remember, priority just means importance. And there may be good reasons why (e.g. context, energy, etc.) on any given day, it might make sense to work on a less important project. But role-fillers can’t ignore official prioritizations either. One needn’t agree with a prioritization, but they must still align with them. Again, use your judgment about what that means in any given case.

#6. Circle Lead prioritizations are always relative

Circle Lead prioritizations are always relative, which includes any explicit deadlines or strategies.

Prioritizations given by the Circle Lead are, by definition, always relative. “Relative,” in this sense, means not absolute; i.e. not without exceptions, caveats, or changes. And when you think about it, very few things in life are absolute. So, one way to interpret a “relative prioritization” is that it just means that you can’t prioritize something without deprioritizing something else. It’s just a fact.

But there is another useful interpretation. “Circle Leads can only give relative prioritizations” means that even with the most creative interpretations, Circle Leads don’t have a way to violate the sovereign boundary of an individual’s moment-to-moment judgment by commanding them to take a specific action.

As we addressed in #2, everyone has the authority (and responsibility) to make their own prioritizations moment-to-moment, so any given prioritization will have some possible exceptions because, well, shit happens. And no one wants someone blindly following orders right off a cliff.

This brings up two important sub-issues: A) how to deal with deadlines, and B) how to deal with Holacracy-style strategies.

• Deadlines — I’ve written a lot about Holacracy-style projections and deadlines, but the short version is that if governance or an official prioritization specifies a deadline, you should not treat that as a mandate you must achieve no matter the cost. Because costs matter. We should consider costs. Reality changes too quickly for us to blindly follow orders (defined in the past) without any consideration or regard for how things might have changed. But we don’t want to disregard deadlines either. If we’re going to successfully coordinate our efforts, then certain things need to happen at certain times. So, instead of blindly following a deadline, treat it as a prioritization; meaning, prioritize any actions needed to hit that deadline over other actions for that circle.
• Strategies — In addition, if the Circle Lead wants to define something more general with the intent that it will be broadly applied, then they want to define a Holacracy-style “strategy,” which is a rule-of-thumb intended to help guide the circle’s roles in self-identifying priorities. I wrote a whole article on Holacracy-style strategies, but the short version is that a Circle Lead-defined “strategy,” like “Innovate new products & test the market even over optimizing the status quo,” tells any role in that circle to generally prioritize developing new products over improving old ones.

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Mike Tyson

The key point to remember is that all Circle Lead prioritizations are relative, even if the Circle Lead doesn’t expressly say so. For example, if a Circle Lead just says, “Project X is really important,” a statement which itself isn’t describing a relative relationship, any role in that circle must still interpret it as relative.

With that said, it might be useful to clarify by asking, “If Project X is important, then what should I de-prioritize?” Or, maybe clarify if it was even a priority (e.g. “Just for clarification, is that an official prioritization as Circle Lead…or were you just sharing a top-of-head opinion?”).

#7. Don’t be afraid to question prioritizations

Don’t be afraid to openly question a prioritization your role has been given.

What should you do if a Circle Lead says something is a priority, but you disagree? The shockingly simple answer is, tell them. Since you’ll be required to integrate and align to whatever priorities they give, prioritizations should make sense to you (at least enough that it doesn’t create some sort of psychological block that limits you from taking action).

I’ve encountered Circle Leads who were hesitant to provide prioritizations because they feared others would hear them as commands. While it’s true that others may interpret them as commands, the solution isn’t to withhold them. That just makes things more confusing. Instead, Circle Leads should provide clear prioritizations, but they should also encourage or solicit pushback. They should clarify that questioning a prioritization and surfacing new data or opinions is welcome.

But even if they don’t explicitly invite it, any good Circle Lead wants the best data available. If you’re not sure how to politely or elegantly bring it up, here are some stems you could use:

• “My opinion is that this other thing is more important, and I’ll align to whichever one, but I’d like to get some clarity first…”
• “I’d like to pitch you that this other thing is more important…”
• “I’d like to influence your thinking on that…”

The emphasis here is to question it openly. Meaning, don’t disagree with a prioritization by covertly sabotaging projects or complaining under your breath. Bring it up. Make your argument. See what happens.

#8. “What would produce the greatest value?”

There’s no perfect formula; instead, use this simple question: “What could I do that would produce the greatest value to the organization?” and then trust others to process their tensions.

Determining what to do in a given moment is always, ultimately, an intuitive judgment call. Reality is messy. And even though having some explicit prioritizations can help clarify that complexity, in practice, practitioners can easily have 5, 10, or 20 different explicit prioritizations to consider.

If that seems overwhelming, I agree. It is overwhelming. But the solution isn’t to try and figure out the perfect formula to magically take out the real complexity we face, but rather to remember that all you need to do is use your best judgment to “integrate and align” to all of those different prioritizations.

And to feel comfortable doing that, you just have to remember: you can trust others to process any tensions they feel about where you’re putting your time and energy. You don’t need to prevent everyone around you from feeling tension about what you’re doing. Just make it clear that you’re open to feedback, new data, new pitches, etc., and that you’ll provide as much transparency as you can about how you’re determining your priorities.

“OK, but what if I still don’t really know what’s most important?” Well, again, there is no perfect formula, so you don’t need to overthink it. It’s usually better to have a basic plan and just start working.

I recommend asking yourself this simple question, “Considering all of my roles in all my circles, what could I do, right now, that would add the most value to the organization?” Then just go with your gut.

And if you get an answer that still feels off (and it prevents you from moving forward), remember:

• “Importance” isn’t the only determining factor. Context and available time or energy also play a part. Maybe nothing can be done right now on the most important thing. That’s OK. That’s reality. The point is to consciously decide to do something else, rather than just unconsciously avoid it. Having a good reason for doing something less important is all you need.
• Do a review. It’s hard to trust your intuitive sense of things when you’ve starved your intuition of data. Our intuition works best when it’s been informed. And in this case, that means a relatively recent review of all of your current agreements and intentions. Even if you don’t get a clear answer of what to do next, you’ll at least feel better about the ambiguity.
• Share your intent. You don’t need permission to use your judgment, but sometimes you still just feel uncomfortable making a decision. That’s OK. Stepping into the unknown is how we learn. But rather than seek approval from others, share your intent instead (“Hey everyone, I’m intending to prioritize X over almost everything else, let me know if that creates any tension for you”).

Conclusion

In the conventional management hierarchy, the “boss” tells you what to do. Maybe not all the time and maybe not explicitly, but at least you feel comfortable knowing that as long as you’re on their good side, things are fine.

And in an ever-more-complex world, we place a premium on this kind of simplicity. It’s easier to just unconsciously prioritize what others have told you to prioritize. It is easier, but not honest.

Ultimately, the problem isn’t doing what someone else tells you to do; sometimes that makes the most sense. The problem is doing it unconsciously.

Holacracy’s rules about prioritization can help you, but not because they artificially make the complex seem more simple, but because they allow us to bring even greater consciousness to the real complexity we’re actually facing.

---

Read “Introducing the Holacracy Practitioner’s Guide” to find more articles.