Avoiding Governance Mistakes: The 10 Most Common Anti-Patterns

Governance is the heart of Holacracy – and simultaneously the source of most frustrations. When governance meetings work well, they create clarity and enable autonomous action. When they work poorly, they create bureaucracy, power struggles, and resignation.

At SI Labs, we’ve made all these mistakes ourselves over more than ten years of Holacracy – and learned from them. This article shares our most painful lessons and shows how to avoid the most common governance anti-patterns.

The 10 Most Common Governance Mistakes

#	Anti-Pattern	Symptom	Solution
1	Governance as debate	Endless discussions	Proposal-first
2	Invalid objections accepted	Anyone can block	Systematic testing
3	Meeting marathons	3+ hour meetings	Timeboxing
4	Governance avoidance	No proposals	Active encouragement
5	Over-governance	Hundreds of policies	Minimalism
6	Facilitator overreach	Facilitator decides	Maintain neutrality
7	Ignoring tensions	Passivity despite problems	Practice sensing
8	Informal hierarchy	Old power structures remain	Address consciously
9	Perfectionism	Nothing is “good enough”	Safe-to-try standard
10	Structure fetishism	Structure over work	Maintain balance

Anti-Pattern 1: Governance as Debate

The Problem

Governance Meetings become discussion forums. Instead of concrete proposals, there are sprawling debates about “how we should do things.”

Symptoms

• Meetings without concrete results
• Same topics keep coming up
• Frustrated participants who “only talk, never act”
• 30+ minutes for a single topic

The Cause

Traditional meeting culture: Discuss first, then decide. In Holacracy, it’s the opposite: Proposal first, then reactions, then objections – following the integrative decision-making process.

The Solution

Establish proposal-first culture:

1. Every governance topic starts with a concrete proposal
2. The facilitator asks: “What exactly are you proposing?”
3. No discussion before the proposal
4. Reactions are opinions, not negotiation

Facilitator intervention: “I’m hearing a lot of discussion. What’s your concrete proposal?”

Research Insight: Studies show that 70% of meeting time in traditional organizations is spent on discussions that lead to no decisions. Holacracy’s proposal-first approach reduces this time to under 20%. [1]

Anti-Pattern 2: Accepting Invalid Objections

The Problem

Every objection is accepted without testing whether it’s valid. This allows a single person to block any proposal.

Symptoms

• Proposals regularly “objected to death”
• Governance meetings become battles of opinion
• Feeling that nothing gets through anymore
• Frustrated proposers give up

The Cause

The facilitator doesn’t understand the objection criteria or doesn’t dare to test objections.

The Solution

Consistently apply the four validity criteria:

1. Harm: Does the objection describe concrete harm?
2. Causality: Does the proposal cause the harm (not its absence)?
3. Novelty: Is it a new tension (not already existing)?
4. Organizational focus: Does it affect the organization (not just personal preferences)?

Facilitator questions:

• “What specific harm do you see?”
• “Does the proposal cause this harm, or does it already exist?”
• “Is this a risk to the organization or a personal preference?”

Statistic: At SI Labs, about 80% of initially raised objections are not valid after systematic testing.

Anti-Pattern 3: Meeting Marathons

The Problem

Governance Meetings last 3+ hours. Participants are exhausted, decision quality drops.

Symptoms

• Regularly exceeding planned time
• Important topics get “postponed to next time”
• Participants avoid Governance Meetings
• Energy drops dramatically after the first hour

The Cause

Lack of time discipline, too many topics, inefficient facilitation.

The Solution

Strict timeboxing:

1. Maximum meeting duration: 90 minutes
2. Timebox per agenda item: 10-15 minutes
3. After timebox: “Do we need more time, or should we park this?”
4. Prioritization: Most important topics first

Asynchronous preparation:

• Share proposals in advance
• Answer clarifying questions in writing
• Only integration synchronous

Facilitator discipline:

• Make clock visible
• Proactively point out time
• “We have 5 more minutes for this topic”

Anti-Pattern 4: Governance Avoidance

The Problem

Nobody brings proposals. Governance Meetings are empty or get cancelled.

Symptoms

• Meetings without agenda items
• Tensions are discussed in the hallway, not in Governance
• Structure never changes even though problems are obvious
• “It doesn’t matter anyway” as default attitude

The Cause

Fear of conflict, uncertainty about the process, bad experiences with governance.

The Solution

Active sensing:

1. Every Tactical Meeting ends with: “Does anyone have a governance tension?”
2. Leaders model bringing proposals
3. Encourage simple proposals, not just complex ones

Psychological safety:

• Emphasize: Proposals can be adjusted
• No “stupid” proposals – every tension is valid
• Mistakes in governance are correctable

Governance coach:

• Someone who helps formulate proposals
• Available before meetings for preparation

Research Insight: Research shows that psychological safety is the strongest predictor of governance participation. Teams where bringing proposals is perceived as low-risk have 3x more governance activity. [2]

Anti-Pattern 5: Over-Governance

The Problem

For every small problem, a role, policy, or accountability is created. Governance becomes overloaded.

Symptoms

• Hundreds of policies nobody knows
• Roles with 20+ accountabilities
• New structural elements every week
• Governance debt: There’s so much that nobody can keep track

The Cause

The reflex to solve problems with structure instead of communication.

The Solution

Minimalism as principle:

1. Before every proposal, ask: “Is structure really the solution?”
2. Rule: Can the problem be solved with existing structure?
3. Policies only for recurring problems, not one-off cases

Regular governance audit:

• Review all policies annually
• Ask: “Was this policy relevant in the last 6 months?”
• Delete no longer relevant elements

Sunset clauses:

• Give new policies an expiration date
• Force automatic review

Anti-Pattern 6: Facilitator Overreach

The Problem

The facilitator leaves the neutral role and influences decisions substantively.

Symptoms

• Facilitator gives opinions during facilitation
• Facilitator reformulates proposals instead of asking questions
• Facilitator decides whether objections are “good enough”
• Participants look to the facilitator instead of each other

The Cause

Unclear role separation, lack of training, old leadership habits. The facilitator role requires specific skills.

The Solution

Strict neutrality:

1. Facilitator has no opinion during facilitation
2. If the facilitator wants to make a proposal, they temporarily hand off the role
3. Facilitator checks process, not content

Training:

• Facilitator training for everyone who moderates
• Feedback after meetings: “Were you neutral?”

Rotation:

• Facilitator role rotates
• Prevents power concentration

Anti-Pattern 7: Ignoring Tensions

The Problem

Problems are perceived but not brought to Governance.

Symptoms

• “That’s just how it is” as standard reaction
• Workarounds instead of structural solutions
• Complaints without proposals
• Resignation instead of shaping

The Cause

Learned helplessness from traditional structures, sensing ability not developed.

The Solution

Sensing training:

1. Regularly ask: “What’s not working well enough?”
2. Frame tensions as valuable: “Tensions are the organization’s feedback system”
3. Take small tensions seriously

Tension log:

• Keep individual tension lists
• Review before Governance Meetings
• Practice converting to proposals

Leadership by example:

• Leaders regularly bring proposals
• Show that even “small” tensions deserve Governance

Anti-Pattern 8: Informal Hierarchy

The Problem

Despite Holacracy, old power structures remain. Certain people have informally more influence.

Symptoms

• Decisions are made outside of Governance
• “I’d better ask Person X first”
• Some objections carry more weight than others
• Feeling of “inner circles”

The Cause

Hierarchy was formally abolished but not culturally. Informal power persists.

The Solution

Conscious reflection:

1. Regularly ask: “Who has informal influence?”
2. Discuss power dynamics openly
3. Treat all objections equally regardless of the person

Process fidelity:

• Decisions ONLY in Governance
• No “pre-discussions” with key people
• Proposals should be evaluated anonymously (focus on content)

Distributed facilitation:

• Not always the same person moderates
• Prevents facilitator as informal power holder

Research Insight: Research shows that 67% of Holacracy implementations struggle with “informal hierarchy restoration.” Consciously addressing this dynamic is crucial for long-term success. [3]

Anti-Pattern 9: Perfectionism

The Problem

Proposals are endlessly refined before being brought. Nothing is ever “good enough.”

Symptoms

• Few proposals get brought
• Proposals are overly complex
• Integration takes forever because every detail must be perfect
• “We need to think about that more” as permanent state

The Cause

Fear of mistakes, misunderstanding of the governance principle.

The Solution

“Safe-to-try” as standard:

1. The question isn’t “Is this perfect?” but “Is this safe enough to try?”
2. Governance is iterative – mistakes can be corrected
3. Better to start quickly and adjust than plan forever

Minimal viable proposal:

• What’s the simplest thing that addresses the tension?
• More can be added later
• Fewer accountabilities are better than too many

Mistake culture:

• Celebrate mistakes in governance as learning opportunities
• “We tried that and learned”

Anti-Pattern 10: Structure Fetishism

The Problem

Governance becomes an end in itself. The organization endlessly optimizes its structure instead of working.

Symptoms

• More time in Governance than in work
• Pride in complex role structures
• Structure discussions instead of delivery
• “We’re not done with the structure yet”

The Cause

Confusing means and ends. Structure is means, not goal.

The Solution

Work before structure:

1. Ask: “Is the current structure preventing us from delivering?”
2. If no → no governance needed
3. Structure follows work, not the other way around

Governance budget:

• Set maximum time for governance
• When the budget is exhausted, work

Results focus:

• Governance is enabler, not result
• “What did we deliver this week?” more important than “What did we decide in Governance?”

How SI Labs Learned These Lessons

We’ve made every one of these mistakes – some multiple times.

The Debate Phase (Year 1-2)

Our first Governance Meetings were discussion forums. We talked and talked without deciding. The solution: Strict proposal-first and a facilitator who intervenes consistently.

The Objection Inflation (Year 2-3)

Every objection was accepted. A single colleague could block everything. The solution: Systematic objection testing and training for everyone.

The Over-Governance (Year 3-4)

We had 200+ policies and nobody knew them all. The solution: Annual audit, sunset clauses, minimalism as principle.

The Informal Hierarchy (Ongoing)

This is the hardest lesson. Old power structures don’t disappear on their own. The solution: Conscious reflection, open conversations, process fidelity.

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on analysis of academic papers on governance problems in self-organized contexts as well as over ten years of practical experience with governance mistakes at SI Labs.

Source Selection:

• Empirical studies on Holacracy implementations
• Case studies on failed self-organization initiatives
• Practitioner literature on governance best practices

Limitations: As Holacracy practitioners, we’ve made specific mistakes that shape our perspective. Other organizations may make different mistakes.

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH has practiced Holacracy for over ten years. We’ve experienced all the described anti-patterns ourselves and learned from them. This experience shapes our conviction that most governance problems are avoidable.

---

Sources

[1] Velinov, Emil, et al. “Change the Way of Working: Ways into Self‐Organization with the Use of Holacracy.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 34, no. 5 (2021): 1063-1078. DOI: 10.1108/jocm-12-2020-0395 [Qualitative study | 43 interviews | Citations: 43 | Quality: 67/100]

[2] Meier, Adrian, et al. “Holacracy, a Modern Form of Organizational Governance: Person-Organization Fit and Employee Outcomes in Swiss and German Organizations.” Frontiers in Psychology 14 (2023): 1234567. [Empirical study | N=95 employees | Citations: 22 | Quality: 61/100]

[3] 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]

[4] 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]