Article
Self-OrganizationCross-Circle Meetings: Coordination Between Circles
How do Circles coordinate in Holacracy? The mechanisms for cross-Circle communication and when additional meetings make sense.
What happens when two Circles need to work together? Holacracy has built-in mechanisms for cross-Circle coordination. But sometimes they’re not enough. Then you need additional meetings.
At SI Labs, we’ve learned: The structural connections (Rep Link, Cross Link) handle 80% of the work. For the remaining 20%, you sometimes need dedicated formats.
The Built-in Cross-Circle Mechanisms
Before introducing new meetings: Holacracy already has structures for Circle-spanning coordination.
The Rep Link
Every Sub-Circle has a Rep Link who represents the Circle in the Super-Circle:
Function:
- Brings tensions from the Sub-Circle to the Super-Circle
- Participates in Super-Circle Tacticals and Governances
- Communicates relevant information back
How this enables cross-Circle coordination:
- Sub-Circle A has a tension with Sub-Circle B
- Rep Link A brings it as a triage topic in Super-Circle Tactical
- Rep Link B (or affected role) can respond
- Coordination happens in the existing format
The Cross Link
Cross Links connect Circles that have no hierarchical relationship:
Function:
- Represents one Circle in another
- Participates in the other Circle’s meetings
- Brings tensions
When a Cross Link makes sense:
- Two Circles have high interdependence
- The normal Rep Link chain is too long
- More direct communication is needed
Lead Link Coordination
Lead Links from different Circles can coordinate directly:
- Informal conversations
- Clarify shared priorities
- Resolve conflicts
When Additional Cross-Circle Meetings Make Sense
The built-in mechanisms cover routine coordination. But there are situations that need more:
Situation 1: Shared Projects
When multiple Circles work on a large project:
- Website relaunch (Design Circle + Tech Circle + Marketing Circle)
- Product launch (Product Circle + Sales Circle + Support Circle)
Why built-in mechanisms aren’t enough:
- Too many stakeholders
- Too much detail for Super-Circle Tactical
- Higher frequency needed
Situation 2: Process Interfaces
When work regularly flows between Circles:
- Lead generation (Marketing → Sales)
- Feature requests (Support → Product)
Why built-in mechanisms aren’t enough:
- High frequency of handoffs
- Need for detailed alignment
- Feedback loops need maintenance
Situation 3: Strategic Alignment
When Circles have shared strategic questions:
- Market positioning
- Resource allocation
- Priority conflicts
Why built-in mechanisms aren’t enough:
- Strategic depth needs time
- Super-Circle Tactical is too operational
Formats for Cross-Circle Meetings
Format 1: The Sync Meeting
Purpose: Regular alignment between two Circles
Participants: Relevant roles from both Circles (not all)
Frequency: Weekly or bi-weekly
Duration: 30-45 minutes
Agenda:
- Check-in (brief)
- Status updates on shared projects
- Clarify open items
- Next steps
Example: Marketing-Sales sync for lead handoff
Format 2: The Project Tactical
Purpose: Coordination of a cross-Circle project
Participants: Roles with accountability in the project
Frequency: Weekly during project phase
Duration: 30-60 minutes
Agenda: Like a normal Tactical, but project-focused:
- Check-in
- Project metrics
- Triage (only project tensions)
- Check-out
Example: Launch Tactical for product release
Format 3: The Alignment Meeting
Purpose: Strategic alignment between Circles
Participants: Lead Links + relevant roles
Frequency: Monthly or quarterly
Duration: 60-90 minutes
Agenda:
- Context update per Circle
- Identify shared challenges
- Develop solutions
- Next steps
Example: Quarterly alignment between Product and Tech
Cross-Circle Meetings and Governance
Cross-Circle coordination can also need structure:
When Governance Helps
- When the same alignment problem keeps recurring
- When roles have unclear responsibilities at interfaces
- When policies could regulate collaboration
Governance Options
Set up Cross Link: When one Circle should be permanently represented in another.
Shared accountability: An accountability is defined in both Circles.
Policy for interface: “For feature requests over X effort, a joint meeting is convened.”
Cross-Circle Meetings at SI Labs
Our approach:
What We Use
1. Weekly Ops Sync: All Lead Links + Operations role, 30 minutes:
- Overarching updates
- Clarify resource conflicts
- Quick alignment
2. Project Tacticals as needed: For larger cross-Circle projects:
- Dedicated meeting during project duration
- Dissolved when project is done
3. Quarterly Strategy Alignment: Lead Links + selected roles, 90 minutes:
- Check strategic direction
- Resolve priority conflicts
What We’ve Learned
1. Less is more New meetings only when built-in mechanisms aren’t enough. Otherwise meeting inflation.
2. Clear purpose Every cross-Circle meeting needs a clear purpose. “Alignment” is too vague.
3. Limited participants Not everyone from both Circles. Only relevant roles.
4. Time-limited Project meetings end when the project ends. Regularly check: Do we still need this?
Research Insight: Reitzig (2022) shows in his analysis of flat organizations that tailored coordination mechanisms are more effective than standard solutions: “Systematically thinking through a series of classic organization design questions to shape a custom-tailored design is promising when delayering grown hierarchies.” This confirms why cross-Circle meetings should be designed situationally – not as a universal template. [3]
Research Insight: Empirical case studies on transitioning to agile structures (Gutiérrez-Broncano et al., 2024) identify cross-functional coordination as a critical success factor: “The transformation process itself does not follow a one-size-fits-all approach; rather, it is contingent upon the unique context of each individual case.” Holacracy’s Rep Links and Cross Links address exactly this need for context-specific coordination. [4]
Common Mistakes
Mistake 1: Too Many Cross-Circle Meetings
Problem: Every alignment issue leads to a new meeting.
Solution: First check if Rep Link, Cross Link, or Super-Circle Tactical can solve the problem.
Mistake 2: Inviting Everyone
Problem: Cross-Circle meeting becomes too large and unproductive.
Solution: Only roles with real stake in the topic. Inform others via update.
Mistake 3: Governance Substitute
Problem: Structural questions get “solved” in cross-Circle meeting instead of Governance.
Solution: Bring structural solutions to the appropriate Governance.
Conclusion: Structure Before Meetings
Holacracy offers structure for cross-Circle coordination: Rep Links, Cross Links, Super-Circle. These mechanisms should be used first.
Additional meetings make sense when:
- Projects need intensive coordination
- Interfaces have high frequency
- Strategic alignment is needed
But: Every new meeting is overhead. The best cross-Circle coordination is the kind that doesn’t need extra meetings.
Research Methodology
This article is based on Holacracy literature, empirical research on organization design, and experience with cross-Circle coordination at SI Labs.
Source selection:
- Holacracy constitution (Cross Links, Rep Links)
- Organization design research (Reitzig, Gutiérrez-Broncano)
- Practice reports from multi-Circle organizations
Limitations:
- Little research on cross-Circle dynamics
- Context-dependence
Disclosure
SI Labs GmbH uses various formats for cross-Circle coordination.
Sources
[1] 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]
[2] HolacracyOne. “Holacracy Constitution v5.0.” https://www.holacracy.org/constitution [Primary Source | Constitution | Quality: 60/100]
[3] Reitzig, Markus. “How to Get Better at Flatter Designs: Considerations for Shaping and Leading Organizations with Less Hierarchy.” Journal of Organization Design 11 (2022): 9-14. DOI: 10.1007/s41469-022-00109-7 [Analysis | Organization Design | Citations: 24 | Quality: 76/100]
[4] Gutiérrez-Broncano, Santiago, et al. “Transitioning to Agile Organizational Structures: A Contingency Theory Approach in the Financial Sector.” Systems 12, no. 4 (2024): 142. DOI: 10.3390/systems12040142 [Case Study | 5 Cases | Citations: 19 | Quality: 74/100]