Governance Meetings in Holacracy: Complete Guide for Facilitators

Governance Meetings are where a holacratic organization changes itself. Here roles are created, domains are assigned, and policies are established. A well-run Governance Meeting creates clarity and structure. A poorly run one becomes a frustrating endless loop.

After over ten years of Holacracy practice at SI Labs, we’ve facilitated hundreds of Governance Meetings. We know the pitfalls, the shortcuts, and the techniques that make the difference. This article shares that knowledge.

What Happens in Governance Meetings?

Governance Meetings change the organization’s structure. They’re not for operational topics but for structural ones:

What BELONGS in Governance:

• Creating, modifying, or deleting roles
• Assigning or removing domains
• Adding or changing accountabilities
• Creating or modifying policies
• Adjusting circle structure

What DOESN’T belong in Governance:

• Project decisions
• Strategy discussions
• Feedback to individuals
• Operational coordination

This distinction is essential. When operational topics end up in Governance, meetings become long and frustrating. Governance is for structure, Tactical is for work.

Research Insight: A study with 43 interviews in Swiss holacratic organizations shows that clear separation of Governance and operational meetings is a success factor for Holacracy implementation. [1]

The Complete Meeting Flow

Governance Meetings follow a fixed sequence. This structure is not optional—it’s the core of the process.

1. Check-in Round (5-10 minutes)

Each participant briefly shares what’s on their mind. The goal: create presence and “park” distracting thoughts.

Rules:

• Each person speaks in turn, without interruption
• No discussion, no reactions
• Brevity is appreciated (30-60 seconds per person)

Facilitator Tip: Start with one person and go around the circle. Say explicitly: “No reactions, we’re just parking our thoughts.”

2. Administrative Concerns (2-5 minutes)

Logistical questions are clarified:

• When does the meeting end?
• Who takes notes (Secretary role)?
• Are there time constraints?

This part is brief. If it takes longer, the basics aren’t clear.

3. Agenda Building (3-5 minutes)

Anyone can add items to the agenda. Items are named only with keywords, not explained.

Rules:

• One or two words per agenda item
• No explanations or discussions
• The facilitator asks: “What do you need from this meeting?”

Examples of Agenda Items:

• “Marketing Role”
• “Website Domain”
• “Vacation Policy”

The facilitator decides the order. Typically, quick items are processed first.

4. Integrative Decision-Making (Main Part)

This is where the real work happens. Each agenda item is processed through the IDM process.

The IDM Process in 6 Steps:

Step 1: Proposal The proposer makes a concrete proposal. The proposal should be specific and actionable.

Example: “I propose creating a new role ‘Social Media Manager’ with the purpose ‘Strengthen our presence in social media’ and the accountability ‘Publish posts on LinkedIn and Twitter.’”

Step 2: Clarifying Questions Everyone can ask questions to understand the proposal. The goal is understanding, not evaluating.

Allowed: “What do you mean by ‘strengthen presence’?” Not allowed: “Don’t you think that’s too much?”

The facilitator interrupts statements disguised as questions.

Step 3: Reaction Round Each person shares their reaction to the proposal. The proposer only listens and doesn’t respond.

Allowed: “I like the proposal because…” or “I’m skeptical because…” Not allowed: Discussions or debates

Step 4: Amend & Clarify The proposer can adjust their proposal based on the reactions. This is optional.

Step 5: Objection Round The facilitator asks each person: “Do you see any reason why this proposal would harm the organization?”

A valid objection (as opposed to a mere concern) must:

• Describe concrete harm
• Be caused by the proposal (not by its absence)
• Be a new tension (not something that existed before)

Step 6: Integration Valid objections are integrated. The proposal is adjusted until no valid objection remains.

Research Insight: Studies show that the IDM process, when properly applied, leads to faster results than consensus-based methods, since only valid objections need to be addressed, not general concerns. [2]

5. Closing Round (3-5 minutes)

Each person shares a brief reflection on the meeting. This creates closure and enables meta-feedback.

Possible Prompts:

• “One word that describes the meeting”
• “What am I taking away?”
• “What surprised me?”

The Facilitator Role

The facilitator is the guardian of the process. They ensure that the rules are followed and the meeting runs efficiently.

Core Tasks of the Facilitator

Enforce the process: The rules apply to everyone, including the facilitator. When someone makes a statement in the Clarifying phase, the facilitator interrupts: “That sounds like a reaction. Do you have a question?”

Maintain neutrality: The facilitator has no content opinion while facilitating. If they want to make a proposal themselves, they can temporarily step out of the facilitator role.

Manage energy: When the meeting stalls, the facilitator can raise energy: “Let’s take a quick breath.” When it’s going too fast, they can slow down: “Hold on, let’s do this cleanly.”

Keep time in mind: Governance Meetings should not exceed 2 hours. The facilitator keeps time in mind and prioritizes agenda items accordingly.

Common Facilitator Mistakes

Too little intervention: The facilitator lets discussions run because they don’t want to be rude. This is the most common mistake. The rules are the tool—use them.

Too much explanation: The facilitator explains the process during the meeting. Better: Short interventions. “That’s a reaction, not a question.”

Content participation: The facilitator gives content opinions while facilitating. This undermines neutrality.

Impatience with objections: The facilitator accepts objections too quickly without testing for validity. Valid objections are rare.

Research Insight: Research on self-organized teams shows that effective facilitation is the strongest predictor of meeting satisfaction, more important than the agenda or the participants. [3]

Time Management in Governance Meetings

Time is a scarce resource in Governance Meetings. These techniques help:

Prepared Proposals

Complex proposals should be prepared in writing before the meeting. This saves time in Step 1 and enables more thoughtful proposals.

Template for Proposals:

Tension: [What is the problem?]
Proposal: [What should be changed?]
- Role/Policy: [Name]
- Purpose: [If applicable]
- Domain: [If applicable]
- Accountabilities: [If applicable]

Timeboxing

Set time limits for agenda items. If an item isn’t resolved after 15 minutes, ask: “Do we need more time, or should we park this?"

"Good Enough for Now”

The standard in Governance is not “perfect” but “safe enough to try.” If a proposal could work and there are no valid objections, it’s accepted. Adjustments can be made later.

Asynchronous Preparation

Many organizations use asynchronous channels (Slack, Teams) for simple Governance changes. If no one objects within 48 hours, the proposal is considered accepted.

Meeting Frequency and Planning

How Often Governance Meetings?

The optimal frequency depends on the organization’s maturity:

Introduction Phase (0-6 months): Weekly or bi-weekly. There are many structural changes.

Stabilization Phase (6-18 months): Bi-weekly. The basic structure is in place, but adjustments are still frequent.

Maturity Phase (18+ months): Monthly or as needed. The structure is stable, major changes are rarer.

When to Call Governance Meetings?

• Regular: Fixed rhythm (e.g., every other Thursday)
• Ad-hoc: When urgent tensions arise that require Governance

Duration

• Small circles (2-5 people): 30-60 minutes
• Medium circles (5-10 people): 60-90 minutes
• Large circles (10+ people): 90-120 minutes maximum

If meetings regularly run longer, that’s a signal: Either there are too many Governance topics (structural problem) or the facilitation is inefficient.

Common Challenges

”Everyone talks over each other”

Cause: Lack of process discipline. Solution: The facilitator consistently intervenes. “Stop. Who has the floor?"

"Meetings take forever”

Cause: Discussions instead of process, invalid objections being processed. Solution: Strict facilitation, timeboxing, “good enough for now” mindset.

”Nobody brings tensions”

Cause: Fear of conflict, uncertainty about the process. Solution: The facilitator actively asks for tensions. “What’s not working well enough?"

"The same topics keep coming back”

Cause: Proposals don’t actually resolve the tension. Solution: Explore the tension precisely before the proposal. “What’s the specific trigger?”

Research Insight: A comparative study shows that recurring Governance topics are often a symptom of unclear role definitions, not inadequate meetings. [4]

Governance Meetings at SI Labs

We’ve refined our Governance process over the years. Some of our practices:

Prepared Proposals

Anyone can post proposals in a shared document before the meeting. This gives others time to prepare.

Asynchronous Governance for Small Things

For uncontroversial changes (e.g., small accountability adjustments), we use a Slack channel with a 48-hour rule.

Facilitator Rotation

The facilitator role rotates among trained individuals. This develops facilitation competence across the team.

Governance Retrospectives

Every six months, we do a retrospective: What’s working in our Governance? What isn’t?

Checklist for Facilitators

Before the meeting:

• Checked agenda channel
• Read prepared proposals
• Defined timeframe

During check-in:

• No reactions allowed
• Everyone gets a turn

During IDM:

• Distinguish clarifying questions vs. statements
• Reaction round without discussion
• Test objections for validity
• Complete integration

After the meeting:

• Governance records updated
• Affected parties informed

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on analysis of 73 academic papers on the topic of Self-Organization Governance (theme cluster T00) as well as 52 papers on Leadership in Self-Organizing Systems (T11). Supplemented by over ten years of facilitation experience at SI Labs with several hundred Governance Meetings.

Source Selection:

• Empirical studies on meeting effectiveness in self-organized contexts
• Case studies on Holacracy implementations
• Practitioner literature on facilitation

Limitations: As practicing facilitators, we have developed strong opinions about effective facilitation. We have endeavored to support these with research findings.

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH has practiced Holacracy for over ten years. Several team members are certified Holacracy facilitators. This experience shapes our perspective.

---

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] 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]

[3] 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]

[4] 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]