The Two (Meta) Agreements Every Holacracy®-Powered Organization Should Have

Holacracy is Structure-Oriented

Holacracy is different from other organizational systems or approaches, because it is what I call a “structure-oriented” approach.

“Structure,” in this sense, means the sum total of all of the defined or explicit expectations, agreements, authorities, and restrictions of the organization.1 And this novel structure-orientation gave the world an innovative new paradigm for relating and collaboration.

Holacracy’s approach to change is different from a “culture-orientation,” which would generally prioritize the shaping the organization’s underlying beliefs, values, and behaviors above anything else.2

And from my experience, leaders seem attracted to Holacracy (to the degree that they are) because of how a structure-based approach brings clarity to things often hidden in the shadows. But there is a catch.

The structure doesn’t do anything, no matter how clear it is, on its own. The people have to care about it. They have to use it. Making it clearer and more accurate certainly helps, but that’s rarely enough on its own.

What are Your Expectations about Your Expectations?

What you need is for the people to actually care about explicit structure (i.e. create tension for them). And while Holacracy’s rules about structure do a lot to increase the chances that they will, it stops short of answering the question, “Why should we care about what we wrote down?”

Meaning, if you don’t have norms that support the active use and reinforcement of the group’s structure (e.g. roles, accountabilities, etc.), then you can spend all the time you want trying to get people to care about “making things explicit,” or “encoding expectations,” but it won’t matter. They’ll never really trust it.3

Thankfully, I have an answer for you. It’s two meta-agreements, which of course don’t automatically solve anything on their own, but do make it easier to unearth sticking points of resistance or confusion. They are:

• “If brought to my attention, I agree to explore whether or not I may have violated an explicit agreement I have made (including but not limited to, the rules defined in the Holacracy constitution, the governance of the Organization, or any documented relational agreement); and if I have, upon request, to explore any impact on others before I realign my behavior and/or explore changing the agreement.”
• “I agree to bring it to someone’s attention when I think they may have violated an explicit agreement they have made (including but not limited to, the rules defined in the Holacracy constitution, the governance of the Organization, or any documented relational agreement).”4

In my professional experience, these two meta-agreements capture what is generally already assumed in any healthy Holacracy (or structure-oriented) practice, so it isn’t their novelty that makes them important; it is their clarity.

Now, pause and ask yourself, “Could I agree to both5 of these if they applied to my organization or team?” If you’re working in a Holacracy-powered organization, then I think your answer should be yes.

If you can’t, that’s OK too. It’s good information. I would only suggest some further exploration on your part like, “What part makes me pause and why?” Or, “What is the offending piece and what would I change it to?” Because the next section assumes they resonate with you.

NOTE: These meta-agreements are about “explicit” expectations only; if you don’t need an explicit agreement with someone, don’t artificially pursue one.

How to Use These Agreements in Your Team

If these agreements (or something similar) make sense to you, then here’s some suggestions on how to operationalize them. After all, these aren’t really just agreements, they are an inquiry into how your team thinks about agreements!

These meta-agreements, when used properly, represent an opportunity to surface and address any unconscious beliefs and norms that may otherwise be eating away at your practice.

You may have all “agreed” to the same rules and expectations, but agreement can take many different forms and often teams have never clarified for themselves their chosen mechanisms for enforcing or enacting those expectations.

Of course, that may not be necessary in your case. Your culture may already support the norms and beliefs needed to make structure matter. If so, cool. Remember, if you don’t need an explicit agreement with someone, don’t artificially pursue one.

But for most, it’s worth the time to take a step back and explore how individuals on the team think about explicit structure. Here are some steps you can take:

• Schedule time and clarify the vibe. Set aside some time for the group to focus on this issue and share that you’re going in with a request (i.e. for each person to agree to both provisions). It’s an exploratory discussion, but keep it grounded and focused on you own seeking each participant’s agreement. Make it clear the priority is weaving a shared reality (i.e. I know what you know, and you know that I know what you know, and others now know that we know, etc.), not artificially forcing consensus.
• Meet one-on-one, or as a group. It’s generally better if you can meet as a group (for weaving shared reality) but there are sometimes good reasons why it’d be better to speak individual to people. The key is welcoming each person’s current reality, which can be difficult to manage appropriately if you also have an agenda of your own. But whatever kind of conversation you have (or process you use), don’t require enthusiastic support. You’d prefer an overt, “No,” to a dishonest, “Yes,” so do what you think you should to create psychological safety, but take them at their word.
• Document the meta-agreements themselves AND track each individual’s agreement. These rules are intended to support a structure-oriented practice (Holacracy or otherwise), so they need to be explicitly captured some place where everyone can see it.6 And if an individual says they agree but feel resistant to the idea of recording it, great! Then explore that. If it helps, remind them that violating this agreement isn’t like breaking a law. “Crossing the line,” in this sense is more like stepping out of bounds on a sports field; it’s a way to guide, not control.7 Either way, track who has agreed and who hasn’t (if applicable).
• If new to Holacracy, test these meta-agreements as soon as possible. Remember that the point of these two meta-agreements is to make structure matter, which really means shifting the group’s norms. And the only way to do that is just to start doing it (e.g. “Hey, I saw you went ahead and sent out that message after we brainstormed, but I wanted to ask if you knew there was actually a policy saying you needed to get my approval for the final version first?”). And if you struggle with what to say, try role-playing it as a group. Each team and each individual are unique, so they no doubt have some unique preferences.

Conclusion

When practicing Holacracy, there are some implicit assumptions and expectations about how you should relate to explicit structure. Hopefully, this article acts as a reminder that those assumptions (whatever they are) often benefit from being made explicit too.

1 “Structure,” as I use it, means any explicit language meant to act as a rule, guideline, law, or principle for the members of a group. It doesn’t mean physical or material structure.

2 Of course, structure and culture are both critical to consider regardless of the specific method or model, which is why my emphasis on the word, “orientation” should be remembered.

3 I actually consider there to be two types of norms that support (or degrade) structure; 1. those about encoding the structure (i.e. why and how do we write it down?); and 2. those about enforcing the structure (i.e. why and how do we bring it up?). This article is only focused on the #2 enforcing side, but I’ll be publishing about encoding norms as well.

4 An eagle-eyed reader may notice I shared almost identical versions of these in my relational agreements article, but I felt they deserved some more attention as I always considered them broadly relevant to any structure-oriented practice.

5 Each on their own may be fine, but together they make each individual responsible for both sides of the dynamic; i.e. there are two points of failure, not one.

6 Any sort of relational agreements ledger will do. If you’re following the For-Purpose Enterprise (FPE) model, then these agreements are a perfect fit for inclusion in an Association Agreement.

7 I call this, The Intention to Adhere.