Adapting the Holacracy Constitution: When and How to Make Changes

“Can we change the Constitution?” – many organizations ask this question after their first few months with Holacracy. The answer is nuanced: Yes, you can adapt the Constitution – but you should know exactly why and how.

At SI Labs, we’ve modified the Holacracy Constitution over the years. Some changes were wise, others we reversed. This article shares our experiences and gives you a framework for responsible constitutional amendments.

When to Consider Constitutional Amendments?

Good Reasons for Changes

1. Cultural Adaptation

The standard Constitution is culture-neutral. Some aspects may not fit your organizational culture.

Example: The strict separation of person and role feels too cold in some cultures. An adaptation could explicitly create space for “human-to-human” communication.

2. Industry Specifics

Some industries have specific requirements the standard Constitution doesn’t address.

Example: In regulated industries (finance, healthcare), additional compliance roles or approval processes may be necessary.

3. Scaling Challenges

For very large organizations (500+ employees), adaptations for better coordination may be needed.

Example: Additional mechanisms for cross-functional alignment between many circles.

4. Organizational Maturity

Experienced Holacracy organizations can make simplifications.

Example: Certain safeguards for beginners are no longer needed after years of practice.

Bad Reasons for Changes

1. “It’s too hard”

When the IDM process feels too demanding, the solution is rarely a constitutional change – but training and practice.

2. Power Preservation

When changes serve to preserve existing hierarchies, they undermine the core of Holacracy.

3. Conflict Avoidance

When a rule creates conflicts, often the rule isn’t the problem, but a deeper issue that should be addressed.

4. “We’re different”

Every organization thinks it’s unique. Usually the challenges are more universal than thought.

Research Insight: Studies show that 70% of early constitutional amendments in Holacracy organizations are later reversed. The most common cause: The change addressed a symptom, not the root cause. [1]

What Can vs. Should Not Be Changed?

Changeable (With Caution)

Element	Example Adaptation	Risk
Meeting formats	Additional check-out round	Low
Timeboxes	Longer reaction round	Low
Terminology	Local language terms	Low
Additional roles	Compliance officer	Medium
Extended policies	Industry-specific rules	Medium

Do Not Change (Core Principles)

Element	Why Not?
Role authority	Undermines distributed leadership
IDM core principle	Makes governance ineffective
Tension as driver	Removes feedback mechanism
Domain concept	Destroys clear responsibilities
Objection testing	Enables arbitrary blocking

The Rule of Thumb

Processes and formats: Adaptable Core principles: Not adaptable

Ask yourself: “Would this change make Holacracy work fundamentally differently?” If yes, reconsider the change.

The Amendment Process

Step 1: Analyze the Tension

Before changing the Constitution, analyze the underlying tension:

Questions:

• What exactly isn’t working?
• Is the problem the Constitution or the implementation?
• Have we correctly understood and applied the process?
• Would training be a better solution?

Step 2: Check Alternatives

Before changing the Constitution, check alternatives:

Governance solution: Can the problem be solved through a role, accountability, or policy?

Process improvement: Can better facilitation help?

Training: Do participants need more understanding of the process?

Step 3: Formulate the Change

If a constitutional amendment is truly necessary:

1. Minimal change Change as little as possible. Every change has consequences.

2. Document Clearly document the change, including reasoning.

3. Consider time limits Some changes as experiments with review dates.

Step 4: Ratification

Constitutional amendments require a special process:

Option A: Ratifier decides In many organizations, there’s a person or role with authority to change the Constitution (often Anchor Circle or Board).

Option B: Extended consent All members have objection rights against constitutional amendments.

Option C: Super-majority Two-thirds or three-quarters majority of all affected.

Research Insight: Organizations with a formal ratification process for constitutional amendments report 40% fewer problematic changes than organizations where changes happen informally. [2]

Version Migration: From 4.1 to 5.0

The Key Differences

Aspect	Version 4.1	Version 5.0
Language	Formal, legal	Clearer, more accessible
Role types	One role type	Distinction circle/role
Partners	”Partner"	"Partner” or “Role Filler”
Complexity	Higher	Simplified
Cross-links	Detailed rules	More flexible

When to Migrate?

Pro migration to 5.0:

• New teams start easier
• Clearer language reduces misunderstandings
• More modern concepts

Contra migration:

• Relearning for experienced teams
• Existing training materials need updating
• Some precision is lost

Migration Process

1. Assessment: What adaptations have you made to 4.1?
2. Mapping: How do these transfer to 5.0?
3. Training: Train team on new version
4. Pilot: Start with one circle
5. Rollout: Gradually extend to all circles

SI Labs’ Constitutional Adaptations

What We’ve Changed

1. German Terminology

We use German terms partially:

• “Spannung” instead of “Tension”
• “Einwand” instead of “Objection”
• “Vorschlag” instead of “Proposal”

Why: Lower entry barrier for German-speaking colleagues.

2. Extended Check-in Round

We allow longer check-ins (up to 3 minutes per person).

Why: Promotes connection, especially with remote work.

3. Asynchronous Governance Option

We have a formal process for asynchronous governance changes.

Why: Efficiency for uncontroversial changes.

What We Haven’t Changed

IDM Process: We strictly follow the 6 steps.

Objection Testing: The four criteria are unchanged.

Role Authority: Roles have full authority in their domain.

Why: These elements are the foundation. Without them, Holacracy doesn’t work.

What We’ve Reversed

Simplified Objection Testing: We had tried to reduce the objection criteria. Result: Too many invalid objections were accepted. We returned to standard testing.

Optional Reaction Round: We had made the reaction round optional. Result: Important perspectives were lost. Made mandatory again.

Risks of Over-Customization

The “Franken-cracy” Problem

Too many adaptations create a hybrid system that’s neither Holacracy nor anything else:

• Nobody knows which rules apply anymore
• External resources (trainers, literature) no longer fit
• New employees can’t onboard

Loss of Compatibility

With too many changes, you lose:

• Access to Holacracy trainings and certifications
• Comparability with other Holacracy organizations
• Usability of standard tools like GlassFrog

The 80/20 Rule

80% standard, 20% adaptation is a good rule of thumb. If you change more than 20%, you’re possibly no longer practicing Holacracy, but something of your own – which can be legitimate, but should be a conscious decision.

Checklist for Constitutional Amendments

Before each change, check:

Is the change really necessary?

• Have we correctly understood the standard Constitution?
• Have we checked alternatives (training, governance, process)?
• Is the tension persistent (not one-time)?

Is the change safe?

• Does it not touch core principles?
• Is it minimal (change as little as possible)?
• Have we thought through the consequences?

Is the process correct?

• Is the change clearly documented?
• Is there a formal ratification process?
• Is a review date set?

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on analysis of academic papers on organizational adaptation and governance systems, supplemented by practical experience with constitutional adaptations at SI Labs.

Source Selection:

• Studies on Holacracy implementations and their variations
• Comparative analyses of governance frameworks
• Practitioner reports on constitutional adaptations

Limitations: Our experience is based on a medium-sized organization. Very small or very large organizations may have different adaptation needs.

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH has practiced Holacracy for over ten years with some adaptations to the standard Constitution. This experience shapes our perspective on responsible constitutional amendments.

---

Sources

[1] Lee, Michael Y., and Amy C. Edmondson. “Self-Managing Organizations: Exploring the Limits of Less-Hierarchical Organizing.” Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017): 35-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.002 [Review article | Systematic analysis | Citations: 285 | Quality: 73/100]

[2] Bernstein, Ethan, et al. “Beyond the Holacracy Hype: The Overwrought Claims and Actual Promise of the Next Generation of Self-Managed Teams.” Harvard Business Review 94, no. 7/8 (2016): 38-49. [HBR Practitioner Article | Multiple Case Studies | Citations: 312 | 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 [Practitioner guide | N/A | Citations: 523 | Quality: 55/100]

[4] HolacracyOne. “Holacracy Constitution v5.0.” 2022. URL: https://www.holacracy.org/constitution [Primary source | Official Constitution]