Cross Links in Holacracy: Connecting Circles That Need to Collaborate

Cross Links solve a problem that occurs in every organization beyond a certain size: Two circles need to collaborate regularly, but neither is above or below the other in the hierarchy. The normal path through the common super-circle is too slow or cumbersome.

At SI Labs, we initially used Cross Links too frequently – until we realized they can also lead to over-coordination. This article explains when Cross Links make sense and when you’re better off avoiding them.

What Is a Cross Link?

A Cross Link is a structural connection between two circles that don’t have a hierarchical relationship. Unlike the Lead Link, which connects top-down, and the Rep Link, which connects bottom-up, the Cross Link connects horizontally.

Core function: The Cross Link carries relevant information and tensions between two circles that need regular coordination.

An Example

The “Product Development” circle and the “Customer Support” circle work in different hierarchy branches. Both report to the Anchor Circle, but through different paths.

Problem: When Support discovers a product issue, this information needs to reach Development. Without a Cross Link, the tension would have to take the long route: Support → Rep Link → Anchor Circle → Lead Link → Development.

Solution: A Cross Link connects Support and Development directly. Information flows without detours.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│            Anchor Circle                │
├─────────────────┬───────────────────────┤
│                 │                       │
│    Marketing    │       Operations      │
│                 │                       │
│  ┌───────────┐  │  ┌─────────────────┐  │
│  │  Support  │←────→│ Product Develop.│  │
│  └───────────┘  │  └─────────────────┘  │
│    Cross Link connects horizontally     │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘

Research Insight: Horizontal connections in organizations are often informal – colleagues talk to each other without this being structurally mapped. The Cross Link makes this necessary coordination explicit and accountable. [1]

When Cross Links Make Sense

Cross Links aren’t meant for every collaboration. They’re a structural tool for specific situations.

Clear Indicators for Cross Links

1. Recurring Dependency

Two circles regularly need information from each other – not once, but as a pattern.

Example: Sales regularly needs technical assessments from Engineering for customer proposals.

2. Time-Critical Coordination

The normal path through the super-circle is too slow for reality.

Example: Marketing needs to react quickly to product changes, can’t wait for the next super-circle meeting.

3. No Clear Superior/Subordinate Relationship

Neither circle should be directive over the other. Unlike super- and sub-circles, the relationship is horizontal. The work relates to the work.

Example: Customer Success and Product Development are equal partners.

When Cross Links Are NOT Useful

1. One-Time Projects

For time-limited collaboration, projects or temporary roles are better suited than permanent structural connections.

2. Informal Communication Suffices

If two people talk regularly anyway and coordination works, no formal structure is needed.

3. The Normal Path Works

If tensions flow well through Rep Link → Super-Circle → Lead Link, the Cross Link is superfluous.

Creating Cross Links

Cross Links are created through the governance process like all structural changes.

The Proposal

A Cross Link is proposed in the governance of the circle that will receive the link. The proposal describes:

1. Which circle receives the Cross Link
2. To which circle the connection is established
3. Which circle appoints the person filling the link

Example Proposal:

“I propose that our circle receives a Cross Link to the ‘Product Development’ circle. The ‘Product Development’ circle appoints the person who fills this link.”

The Accountabilities

The Cross Link typically has the following accountabilities:

• Carrying relevant tensions from the target circle into our circle
• Participating in our governance and tactical meetings
• Communicating our relevant decisions to the target circle

Who Fills the Link?

The Holacracy Constitution states: The circle being linked TO appoints the person. This distinguishes the Cross Link from the Rep Link, which is elected.

Practically:

The Lead Link of the target circle decides who fills the role. Often it’s someone who works at the interface content-wise.

Bi-Directional vs. Uni-Directional Links

Cross Links can function in one or both directions.

Uni-Directional Cross Link

One circle receives a Cross Link, the other doesn’t.

Circle A ←── Cross Link ── Circle B
           (only Circle A receives)

When useful:

• Circle A needs information from Circle B
• Circle B doesn’t need information from Circle A
• Asymmetric dependency

Example: Marketing receives Cross Link from Product Development (needs product info), but Product Development doesn’t need a link to Marketing.

Bi-Directional Cross Link

Both circles receive Cross Links from each other.

Circle A ←── Cross Links ──→ Circle B
         (both receive)

When useful:

• Mutual dependency
• Both circles regularly have tensions for the other
• True partnership at eye level

Example: Sales and Customer Success both regularly have relevant information for each other.

The Decision

Ask yourself: Who really needs information from the other?

Situation	Recommendation
A needs from B, B not from A	Uni-directional (A receives)
Both need from each other	Bi-directional
Unsure	Start uni-directional, expand if needed

Cross Links vs. Projects

Sometimes the question is: Do we need a Cross Link or a joint project?

When a Project Is Better

Time-limited: The collaboration has a clear end.

Concrete result: It’s about a specific deliverable, not ongoing coordination.

No structural change needed: The work fits into existing roles.

When a Cross Link Is Better

Permanent: The coordination is part of normal operations.

No clear end: The collaboration will continue for the foreseeable future.

Structural presence needed: Someone should regularly be in the other circle’s meetings.

Decision Matrix

Criterion	Project	Cross Link
Duration	Limited	Unlimited
Result	Specific	Ongoing
Meeting participation	As needed	Regular
Structural change	No	Yes

Avoiding Excessive Cross-Linking

Cross Links can lead to over-coordination. At SI Labs, we’ve experienced this.

The Symptoms

Too many Cross Links:

• Governance meetings have more guests than members
• Nobody knows who really belongs to the circle anymore
• Meetings become inefficient due to too many perspectives

Cross Links without real function:

• The Cross Link sits in meetings but never contributes anything
• The connection exists “just in case”
• No real tensions are being carried

The Solution

1. Regular Review

Ask quarterly: Was this Cross Link actively used in the last three months?

2. Sunset Clause

Create Cross Links with an expiration date. After 6 months, an active decision must be made about whether it continues.

3. Use Sparingly

Start without a Cross Link. Wait until a real tension emerges. Then act structurally.

Rule of Thumb

A circle should rarely have more than 2-3 Cross Links. If more seem necessary, the circle structure itself might be wrong.

Research Insight: Too many connections between units can slow organizations down rather than speed them up. The art lies in the right degree of coupling – tight enough for coordination, loose enough for autonomy. [2]

Cross Links at SI Labs

Cross Links are an important building block of our Holacracy practice. Our experiences:

What We’ve Learned

Less is more. We had a phase where almost every circle had Cross Links to others. This made meetings large and slow. Today we’re more sparing.

Informal communication first. Before we create a Cross Link, we ask: Can’t people just talk to each other? Often that’s enough.

Actively use or abolish. Cross Links that nobody uses, we delete. They only create confusion.

Typical Challenges

• The line between “useful” and “superfluous” isn’t always clear
• Cross Links are sometimes created as a “nice gesture,” not from real need
• The person in the Cross Link must be active – passive Cross Links are worthless

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on the Holacracy Constitution and our practical experience with Cross Links at SI Labs, supplemented by research on horizontal coordination in organizations.

Source selection:

• Holacracy Constitution and official materials
• Studies on lateral coordination
• Practitioner experiences from the Holacracy network

Limitations: Cross Links are used sparingly by many Holacracy organizations. The practice is less standardized than with Lead Link and Rep Link.

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH has practiced Holacracy for over ten years. We have tested Cross Links in various configurations and also abolished them.

---

Sources

[1] Robertson, Brian J. “Holacracy.” In The Management Shift, edited by Vlatka Hlupic, 145-168. Chichester: Wiley, 2012. DOI: 10.1002/9781119197683.ch9 [Book Chapter | N/A | Citations: N/A | Quality: 60/100]

[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 Practice Article | Multiple Case Studies | Citations: 312 | Quality: 72/100]