Governance FAQ: 25 Common Questions About Holacracy Governance

Governance is the core of Holacracy – and the area that raises the most questions. We’ve collected the 25 most common questions asked at SI Labs and in conversations with other Holacracy organizations.

The answers combine practical experience with research insights.

---

Part 1: Basics (Questions 1-5)

1. What is Governance in Holacracy?

Short answer: Governance is the process through which an organization changes its structure – roles, accountabilities, domains, and policies.

In detail: In Holacracy, there’s a strict separation between “Governance” (shaping structure) and “Operations” (doing work). Governance changes HOW the organization functions. Operations uses the existing structure to get work done.

Governance decides:

• Which roles exist
• What each role should do (Accountabilities)
• What each role has exclusive control over (Domains)
• Which rules apply (Policies)

Research Insight: Studies show that separating Governance and Operations is one of the main success factors for Holacracy implementations. Organizations that blur this separation have significantly more governance problems. [1]

2. Who can participate in Governance?

Short answer: All members of a circle can participate in its Governance.

In detail: A circle member is anyone who has a role in that circle. If you have a role in the Marketing circle, you can participate in Marketing circle’s Governance.

Important: You can only bring tensions you experience in one of your roles – not general opinions or others’ tensions.

Special cases:

• Rep Link: Represents sub-circle in super-circle’s Governance
• Lead Link: Automatic member, can assign roles
• Cross Link: Represents external circle

3. How often should Governance Meetings happen?

Short answer: Typically weekly to monthly, depending on maturity.

Recommendation by phase:

Phase	Frequency	Duration
Introduction (0-6 months)	Weekly	60-90 min
Stabilization (6-18 months)	Every 2 weeks	60-90 min
Maturity (18+ months)	Monthly	45-60 min

Rules of thumb:

• If meetings are regularly empty → meet less often
• If tensions pile up → meet more often
• If meetings regularly run over → meet more often and shorter

4. What’s the difference between Governance and Tactical?

Short answer: Governance changes structure, Tactical coordinates work.

Aspect	Governance	Tactical
Focus	Structure	Work
Output	Roles, Policies	Projects, Actions
Question	”How to organize?"	"What to do?”

Quick test: Ask yourself: “Does the result persist even if nobody works on it?” Yes → Governance. No → Tactical.

5. Do we need a Facilitator?

Short answer: Yes, a Facilitator is mandatory for Governance Meetings.

Why: The Governance process (IDM) has strict rules. Without someone to enforce them, the meeting becomes ineffective.

Facilitator tasks:

• Enforce the process
• Maintain neutrality
• Test objections
• Keep time in mind

Who can be Facilitator? Any circle member can be elected. The role often rotates.

---

Part 2: Meetings (Questions 6-10)

6. How long should a Governance Meeting last?

Short answer: Maximum 90 minutes, better 60 minutes.

Reasoning: After 90 minutes, decision quality drops drastically. Longer meetings are a symptom of process problems, not complex topics.

If meetings regularly run over:

• Share proposals in advance
• Timebox more strictly
• Fewer topics per meeting
• Use asynchronous governance

Research Insight: Research shows that attention in meetings significantly declines after 52 minutes. Governance decisions made in the second hour have 30% higher revision rates. [2]

7. What do I do if my proposal is rejected?

Short answer: In Holacracy, nothing is “rejected” – objections are integrated.

The difference: In a vote, a proposal can fail. In IDM, a proposal is adjusted until no valid objections remain.

If it doesn’t work:

1. Was the objection correctly tested?
2. Was integration really impossible?
3. Does your proposal perhaps address the wrong problem?

Practical tip: If integration is difficult, ask: “What would be the minimum that addresses my tension?“

8. What if nobody brings proposals?

Short answer: Actively ask for tensions and normalize bringing proposals.

Causes for empty Governance:

• Fear of conflict
• Uncertainty about the process
• Feeling that it doesn’t matter
• All tensions get resolved in the hallway

Solutions:

• Facilitator actively asks: “What’s not working well enough?”
• Leaders model bringing proposals
• Encourage simple proposals
• Give feedback when proposals are adopted

9. How do I deal with a dominant participant?

Short answer: The process is the tool – apply it consistently.

In the Clarifying phase: “That sounds like a reaction. Do you have a question?”

In the Reactions phase: “One reaction per person. Thanks, you’ve had yours.”

With objections: Test every objection systematically, regardless of the person.

Basic principle: The rules apply equally to everyone. The Facilitator has authority to intervene.

10. Can I do Governance asynchronously?

Short answer: Yes, for simple, uncontroversial changes.

Suitable for:

• Small accountability adjustments
• Policy additions without expected objections
• Terminology changes

Not suitable for:

• New roles
• Domain assignments
• Controversial changes

Asynchronous process:

1. Post proposal with deadline
2. 48-72 hours for objections
3. No objection → adopted
4. Objection → synchronous meeting

---

Part 3: Decisions (Questions 11-15)

11. What is a valid objection?

Short answer: An objection is valid if it meets four criteria.

The four criteria:

1. Harm: Describes concrete harm to the organization
2. Causality: The harm is caused by the proposal (not by its absence)
3. Novelty: It’s a new tension (didn’t exist before)
4. Organizational focus: Affects the organization (not just personal preferences)

Valid example: “The proposal doesn’t give the role a domain over the budget. This will cause conflicts with Finance.”

Invalid example: “I don’t think that will work.” (No concrete harm description)

Research Insight: In practice, about 80% of initially raised objections are not valid upon systematic testing. Most are concerns or preferences – which belong in the reaction round. [3]

12. How does Integration work?

Short answer: Integration adjusts the proposal so it addresses the objection’s tension without ignoring the original tension.

Important: Integration is NOT a compromise (both give in) and NOT a negotiation (give and take).

Integration questions:

• “What’s the core of your objection?”
• “What would be the minimum that resolves the objection?”
• “Is there a third option that addresses both tensions?”

Example:

• Proposal: “Marketing role gets domain over all communication”
• Objection: “Sales also needs to communicate with customers”
• Integration: “Marketing gets domain over external communication, except sales communication”

13. What if we can’t agree?

Short answer: IDM isn’t about agreement, but about the absence of valid objections.

If it’s stuck:

1. Is the objection really valid? Test again.
2. Is integration really impossible? Look for creative options.
3. Can the proposal be simplified?
4. Do we need more information? Park the proposal and research.

Last resort: If no integration seems possible, the Facilitator can ask: “Is this proposal safe enough to try, even if it’s not perfect?“

14. Who decides in the end?

Short answer: Nobody “decides” – the proposal is adopted if no valid objection exists.

The difference from other systems:

• Consensus: Everyone must agree
• Majority: 50%+ agree
• Autocracy: One person decides
• IDM: No valid objection = adopted

The principle: It’s not about finding the best solution, but a solution that doesn’t cause harm and can be tried.

15. Can I undo a Governance decision?

Short answer: Yes, through a new proposal in a later Governance Meeting.

Process:

1. Identify tension: “The last change isn’t working”
2. Bring proposal: Undo or adjust the change
3. Go through IDM

Important: There’s no “higher authority” that overturns Governance decisions. The path is always a new proposal.

---

Part 4: Roles (Questions 16-20)

16. How do I propose a new role?

Short answer: As a proposal in a Governance Meeting with purpose and accountabilities.

Template: “I propose creating a role [Name] with the purpose [Why does it exist?] and the accountabilities [What should it do?].”

Tips:

• Start with the tension: Why do we need this?
• Purpose before accountabilities: Why is more important than What
• Start minimal: Better too few than too many accountabilities

Research Insight: Roles with clear purpose but few accountabilities work better than roles with many accountabilities but vague purpose. The purpose provides orientation; accountabilities can be added later. [4]

17. Can I change my own role?

Short answer: Yes, if you experience a tension in the role.

Example: You’re in the “Content Creator” role and notice an accountability is missing or unclear.

Process:

1. Identify tension
2. Formulate proposal
3. Bring to Governance Meeting
4. Go through IDM

Limitation: You can’t give yourself domains that take away from others, or accountabilities that disproportionately expand your authority.

18. What if a role becomes too big?

Short answer: Split the role through a Governance proposal.

Signs of “too big”:

• 10+ accountabilities
• Role holder is overloaded
• Unclear priorities within the role
• Different competency requirements

Splitting options:

• By function (Marketing → Content + Events + Ads)
• By phase (Sales → Leads + Closing + Account Management)
• By audience (Support → B2B Support + B2C Support)

19. Who assigns roles?

Short answer: The Lead Link of the circle.

Process:

• Lead Link decides who fills which role
• This is NOT a Governance decision
• No voting, no objections
• Lead Link bears responsibility for appropriate staffing

Important: Lead Link can also remove role assignments. This is not a “termination” – the person stays in the company, only the role assignment changes.

20. What if nobody fills a role?

Short answer: The Lead Link automatically takes on unfilled roles.

Options:

1. Lead Link takes it: Temporary, until someone is found
2. Delete the role: If nobody needs it, maybe the organization doesn’t need it
3. Split the role: Maybe it’s too big for one person
4. Staff externally: Some roles can be filled by external people

---

Part 5: Problems (Questions 21-25)

21. Governance is too slow – what to do?

Short answer: Process discipline, asynchronous preparation, and “good enough” as the standard.

Causes of slow Governance:

• Discussions instead of proposals
• Invalid objections accepted
• Perfectionism
• Unprepared meetings

Solutions:

1. Share proposals in advance
2. Strict timeboxing (10-15 min per agenda item)
3. Test objections consistently
4. “Safe to try” as standard

Research Insight: Organizations that use asynchronous Governance preparation report 40% shorter synchronous meetings with equal or higher decision quality. [5]

22. What if people ignore Governance?

Short answer: Make consequences clear and demand process fidelity.

Why Governance gets ignored:

• Old habits (“I’ll just ask the boss”)
• Governance is perceived as bureaucratic
• Unclear consequences for non-compliance
• Informal paths are faster

Solutions:

• Clear communication: “Structural changes only through Governance”
• Consistently redirect: “That’s Governance – bring a proposal”
• Make successes visible: Governance that worked
• Leadership by example: Leaders use Governance consistently

23. We have too many policies – what to do?

Short answer: Annual policy audit and sunset clauses.

Symptoms of policy overload:

• Nobody knows all the policies
• Policies contradict each other
• Policies are constantly broken

Solutions:

1. Annual audit: For each policy, ask: “Was it relevant in the last 6 months?”
2. Sunset clauses: New policies with expiration dates
3. Minimalism: Before new policies, ask: “Do we really need this?”
4. Consolidate: Combine similar policies

24. Informal hierarchies persist – what to do?

Short answer: Address consciously, demand process fidelity, distribute power.

Signs of informal hierarchy:

• Certain opinions carry more weight
• “I’ll ask Person X first”
• Decisions outside of Governance
• Inner circles

Solutions:

1. Discuss openly: “Who has informal influence?”
2. Process fidelity: Treat all objections equally
3. Rotating roles: Facilitator, Lead Link change
4. Transparency: All Governance decisions public

Research Insight: 67% of Holacracy implementations struggle with informal hierarchy restoration. Conscious, repeated addressing is the only sustainable solution. [6]

25. When should we stop using Holacracy?

Short answer: When the costs permanently exceed the benefits.

Warning signs:

• Governance is consistently ignored
• More time in Governance than in work
• No improvement in collaboration after 18+ months
• Cultural incompatibility

Before you give up:

1. Were the processes correctly implemented?
2. Was there sufficient training?
3. Does leadership really support Holacracy?
4. Was enough time given (at least 18 months)?

Alternatives: If Holacracy doesn’t fit, there are other self-organization models (Sociocracy, Teal principles without framework) or hybrid approaches.

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on synthesis of 73 academic papers on Self-Organization Governance, supplemented by practical experience at SI Labs and conversations with other Holacracy organizations.

Source Selection:

• Meta-analyses on Holacracy implementations
• Empirical studies on Governance effectiveness
• Qualitative studies on Holacracy experiences
• Practitioner literature

Limitations: The questions reflect our experience. Other organizations may ask different questions.

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH has practiced Holacracy for over ten years. We answer these questions regularly – internally and externally. This experience shapes our answers.

---

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] 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] 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]

[5] 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]

[6] Laloux, Frederic. “Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness.” Brussels: Nelson Parker, 2014. ISBN: 978-2960133509 [Practitioner guide | 50+ case studies | Citations: 2100+ | Quality: 62/100]