Asynchronous Holacracy: When Not to Meet

The best meeting is the meeting that doesn’t happen. Holacracy defines clear meeting formats – but not everything needs to happen synchronously. Teams that master asynchronous work save hours of meeting time per week.

At SI Labs, we’ve learned: Tactical Meetings are indispensable for processing tensions. But much of the before and after work can happen asynchronously. This makes synchronous time more focused and shorter.

What “Asynchronous” Means in Holacracy

Asynchronous means: not at the same time. Instead of speaking in a meeting, people write, read, and respond – each at their own time.

Advantages:

• Timezone flexibility for distributed teams
• More thoughtful contributions (time to think)
• Fewer interruptions in workflow
• Documentation is created automatically

Limits:

• Some topics need dialogue
• Nuances get lost
• Can lead to long feedback loops
• Not everything works in writing

What Works Asynchronously

1. Tactical Meeting Preparation

Project updates: Instead of reporting status in the meeting, roles update their projects in the tool beforehand.

Implementation:

• 24h before meeting: Everyone updates project status
• In meeting only “Questions about projects?” (triage topic)
• Time savings: 5-10 minutes per meeting

Checklists and metrics: Captured before the meeting, not read aloud in meeting.

Implementation:

• Everyone captures their checklists/metrics beforehand
• In meeting: Quick scan for anomalies
• Only if problems: Triage topic

Pre-note tensions: Instead of remembering spontaneously in meeting, tensions are noted during the week.

Implementation:

• Shared document or Holacracy tool
• Tension + context briefly described
• In meeting: Agenda already exists

2. Governance Preparation

Share proposals beforehand: Governance proposals benefit from asynchronous preparation.

Implementation:

• Share proposal 2-3 days before meeting
• Clarifying questions can be answered beforehand
• In meeting: Go directly to reaction round

Research Insight: Teams that prepare proposals asynchronously save an average of 40% of Governance Meeting time. Decision quality stays the same or improves. [1]

Collect reactions: First reactions can be written.

Implementation:

• After proposal publication: Collect written reactions
• In meeting: Supplementary verbal reactions
• But: Objections must be processed synchronously

3. Between Meetings

Requests to roles: Not every request needs a meeting.

Implementation:

• Formulate request clearly (with context)
• Address the role, not the person
• Name deadline if relevant
• If no response: Bring up in next Tactical

Small coordination: When two roles need to align on something.

Implementation:

• Quick chat or email
• Only if complex or disagreement: Meeting

Project coordination: Updates, questions, small decisions.

Implementation:

• Project channel or shared document
• Stakeholders can follow along
• Only blockers or larger questions into Tactical

4. Information Distribution

Status reports: Nobody wants to listen to a report.

Implementation:

• Weekly or monthly written status
• Those who want to ask can ask asynchronously
• Meeting time for real tensions

Documentation: Everything someone could read later.

Implementation:

• Wiki or knowledge base
• Links instead of explanations
• Meeting time for what can’t be documented

What Must Stay Synchronous

Not everything can be async. These elements need synchronous time:

1. Triage (Tension Processing)

The actual processing of tensions works best synchronously:

• Dialogue is fast
• Misunderstandings are clarified immediately
• The Facilitator can steer

Why async is difficult:

• Back-and-forth takes days instead of minutes
• Nuances get lost
• Outputs stay vague

2. Governance (Objections and Integration)

The IDM process needs dialogue:

• Objections must be tested
• Integration needs creativity
• Body language helps with sensitive topics

Hybrid possible:

• Proposal + reactions async
• Objections + integration sync

3. Difficult Conversations

When conflict, frustration, or uncertainty is in the room:

• Written escalates quickly
• Tone is missing
• Mistrust grows

Rule: If a topic is emotional, do it synchronously.

4. Check-in and Check-out

These rituals need human connection:

• Presence doesn’t emerge asynchronously
• Connection needs faces/voices

Tools for Asynchronous Holacracy

Holacracy-Specific Tools

Tool	Use
GlassFrog	Projects, Governance, Metrics
Holaspirit	Similar to GlassFrog, different UX

General Tools

Tool	Use
Slack/Teams	Quick coordination, requests
Notion/Confluence	Documentation, status updates
Loom	Asynchronous video updates
Asana/Linear	Project tracking

Best Practices for Tools

1. Clear conventions:

• Where is what shared?
• How quickly is response expected?
• What belongs where?

2. Roles, not people:

• @Marketing not @Anna
• Persists even when person changes

3. Provide context:

• Not just “Question about X”
• But “As Role Y I need Z because of W”

4. Set deadlines:

• “Response needed by Tuesday”
• No open requests without timeframe

Asynchronous Holacracy at SI Labs

Our setup:

Before the Tactical (24h ahead)

• Everyone updates project status in our tool
• Metrics are captured
• Tensions are pre-noted with brief context

Result

• Tactical takes 25-35 minutes instead of 45-60
• More time for real triage
• Fewer status reports in meeting

Before Governance (48h ahead)

• Proposals are shared in the tool
• Clarifying questions are answered in writing
• First reactions are collected

Result

• Governance takes 45-60 minutes instead of 90-120
• Proposals are more thought-through
• Fewer surprises in meeting

What We Don’t Do Asynchronously

• Check-in and check-out (human connection)
• Objection integration (needs dialogue)
• Sensitive topics (tone matters)

Tips for Transitioning

1. Start Slowly

Don’t make everything async at once. One element at a time.

Recommendation:

• Week 1-2: Project updates async
• Week 3-4: Metrics async
• Week 5-6: Pre-note tensions
• Then: Governance preparation

2. Establish Discipline

Async only works with discipline:

• Everyone must update before meeting
• Deadlines must be met
• Facilitator must respond to non-preparation

Consequence for non-preparation: “Your project status is missing. Without update we can’t proceed.” → Noted in meeting, not discussed.

3. Recognize Limits

Not everything works async. If it doesn’t work:

• Go back to sync for that element
• Analyze why it didn’t work
• Perhaps try again later

4. Consider Team Culture

Some teams are “meeting cultures,” others “writing cultures.”

Research Insight: Qualitative research at Mercedes-Benz.io shows that digital transformation and Holacracy can be successfully combined. Velinov et al. (2021) found that distributed teams with clear processes work more effectively: “Agile principles can be embedded in the organizational structure, a strong contrast to conventional management design.” Asynchronous preparation is part of this agility. [4]

For meeting cultures:

• Transition more slowly
• Give more guidance
• Celebrate small wins

For writing cultures:

• Can transition faster
• But don’t completely eliminate sync time

Conclusion: The Right Balance

Asynchronous Holacracy is not either/or. It’s about the right balance:

Async: Preparation, status, information, simple requests

Sync: Tension processing, objections, connection, difficult topics

Synchronous time becomes more valuable when focused on what truly needs to be synchronous. Everything else can wait – and often works better in writing.

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on research on asynchronous teamwork and remote collaboration, supplemented by experience with distributed work at SI Labs.

Source selection:

• Research on remote teams and asynchronous communication
• Empirical case studies on digital transformation (Velinov et al.)
• Holacracy practice reports from distributed organizations
• Own experiments

Limitations:

• Little research specifically on asynchronous Holacracy
• Cultural and context differences

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH works partly distributed and uses asynchronous practices to supplement our Holacracy meetings.

---

Sources

[1] Perlow, Leslie A., Constance Noonan Hadley, and Eunice Eun. “Stop the Meeting Madness.” Harvard Business Review 95, no. 4 (2017): 62-69. [HBR Article | Survey Study | Citations: 89 | Quality: 70/100]

[2] Neeley, Tsedal. Remote Work Revolution: Succeeding from Anywhere. New York: Harper Business, 2021. ISBN: 978-0063068308 [Practice Guide | Research-backed | Quality: 72/100]

[3] Robertson, Brian J. Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2015. ISBN: 978-1627794879 [Practice Guide | N/A | Citations: 523 | Quality: 55/100]

[4] Velinov, Emil, Iveta Malachovská, and Petr Mašín. “How Mercedes-Benz Addresses Digital Transformation Using Holacracy.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 34, no. 5 (2021): 1078-1091. DOI: 10.1108/jocm-12-2020-0395 [Case Study | Qualitative Interviews | Citations: 23 | Quality: 75/100]