Governance Records in Holacracy: Best Practices

Governance documentation makes the difference between a functioning Holacracy and organizational chaos. Without clear records, no one knows which roles exist, who has which authority, and which policies apply. The best governance decision is worthless if it’s not documented and accessible.

At SI Labs, we’ve tested various documentation approaches over ten years. We’ve learned what works and what fails in practice. This article shares those insights.

Why Governance Documentation Matters

Holacracy distributes authority to roles. For this distributed authority to work, everyone must know:

What are my accountabilities? Without documented accountabilities, no one knows what’s expected of them.

Which domains do I have? Without documented domains, it’s unclear what someone has exclusive control over.

Which policies apply? Without documented policies, clear rules are missing.

Who is responsible for what? Without documented roles, gaps and overlaps emerge.

Research Insight: A study on self-organized teams shows that clear, accessible documentation is a critical success factor for distributed authority. Teams with poor documentation more frequently fall back into informal hierarchies. [1]

What Must Be Documented

The Holacracy Constitution defines what must be officially documented:

Roles

For each role:

• Name: The unique designation of the role
• Purpose: Why does this role exist? (optional but recommended)
• Domains: What does the role have exclusive control over?
• Accountabilities: What recurring activities are expected?

Example role documentation:

ROLE: Customer Success Manager

Purpose: Ensure customer satisfaction after purchase

Domains:
- Customer surveys
- Customer communication after contract signing

Accountabilities:
- Contact customers 30 days after purchase
- Document customer feedback and forward to product team
- Respond to customer inquiries within 24 hours
- Conduct Quarterly Business Reviews with Enterprise customers

Circles

For each circle:

• Name: The unique designation of the circle
• Purpose: Why does this circle exist?
• Domains: What does the circle as a whole control?
• Accountabilities: What does the circle do as a unit?
• Roles: All roles within the circle
• Sub-circles: If present, with reference to their documentation

Policies

For each policy:

• Affected circle/role: Where does the policy apply?
• Policy text: The exact wording
• Date: When was the policy decided?
• Governance meeting: In which meeting was it decided?

Example policy documentation:

POLICY: Purchase Approval (Operations Circle)

Text: "Role holders may make purchases up to $500 without approval.
Purchases over $500 require consent from the Finance role."

Decided: 2025-03-15
Meeting: Governance Meeting Q1-3

Elected Roles

For each circle:

• Facilitator: Who moderates meetings?
• Secretary: Who maintains records?
• Rep Link: Who represents the circle upward? (if sub-circle)

Lead Link Assignments

Document who energizes which roles. This is typically managed by the Lead Link but should be visible to all.

Documentation Formats and Templates

Format Principles

1. Consistency: Every role, every policy, every circle should be documented in the same format.

2. Scannability: The most important information should be quickly graspable.

3. Hierarchy: Circles > Roles > Details

4. Currency: Outdated information does more damage than missing information.

Template: Role

## [Role Name]

**Purpose:** [One sentence explaining why the role exists]

**Domains:**
- [Domain 1]
- [Domain 2]

**Accountabilities:**
- [Accountability 1]
- [Accountability 2]
- [Accountability 3]

**Energized by:** [Name] (since [Date])

Template: Circle

# [Circle Name]

**Purpose:** [Why does this circle exist?]

**Domains:**
- [Circle Domain 1]

**Roles in this circle:**
- [Role 1]
- [Role 2]
- [Role 3]

**Sub-circles:**
- [Sub-circle 1] (Link)

**Elected roles:**
- Facilitator: [Name] (until [Date])
- Secretary: [Name] (until [Date])
- Rep Link: [Name] (until [Date])

**Policies:**
- [Policy 1 Title]
- [Policy 2 Title]

Template: Governance Changelog

# Governance Changes [Date]

## New Roles
- [Role name]: [Brief description] (Proposer: [Name])

## Changed Roles
- [Role name]: [What was changed]

## Deleted Roles
- [Role name]: [Reason]

## New Policies
- [Policy title] for [Circle]

## Changed Policies
- [Policy title]: [What was changed]

## Deleted Policies
- [Policy title]: [Reason]

Research Insight: Studies on organizational documentation show that teams using standardized templates spend 40% less time maintaining documentation while having more consistent records. [2]

Organizing Governance Records

Structure by Circles

The most natural structure follows the circle hierarchy:

📁 Governance
├── 📁 Anchor Circle
│   ├── Roles.md
│   ├── Policies.md
│   └── 📁 Sub-circles
│       ├── 📁 Product
│       │   ├── Roles.md
│       │   └── Policies.md
│       ├── 📁 Operations
│       │   ├── Roles.md
│       │   └── Policies.md
│       └── 📁 Sales
│           ├── Roles.md
│           └── Policies.md
└── 📁 Changelog
    ├── 2025-Q4.md
    └── 2025-Q3.md

Naming Conventions

Consistent naming makes finding easier:

• Circles: CamelCase or with hyphens (Product-Development)
• Roles: Clear designation, no abbreviations
• Policies: With circle prefix (OPS-Purchase-Approval)

Versioning

Governance changes should be traceable:

• Date of every change
• Type of change (new, changed, deleted)
• Governance meeting where decided
• Optional: Archive previous version

Access and Transparency

Who Needs Access?

All circle members: Must be able to see all governance records of their circle.

All organization members: Should at least be able to see the basic structure of all circles.

External (optional): Some organizations make their governance public.

Access Levels

Typical access hierarchy:

Level	Who	What
Read	Everyone	All governance records
Comment	Circle members	Records of their circle
Edit	Secretary	Records of their circle
Administer	Super-Admin	All records, structure

Transparency as Principle

In Holacracy, governance transparency isn’t a nice-to-have but a prerequisite for the system to function. If someone can’t look up a role’s authority, they can’t respect or use it.

Versioning and History

Why History Matters

• Traceability: Why was a role defined this way?
• Learning capability: What worked, what didn’t?
• Conflict resolution: What was the original intent?

What Should Be Archived

• Deleted roles (with date and reason)
• Old versions of changed roles
• Governance meeting protocols
• Significant decisions and their context

Archive Structure

📁 Governance-Archive
├── 📁 Deleted-Roles
│   ├── Events-Coordinator_2024-06.md
│   └── Office-Manager_2024-09.md
├── 📁 Old-Versions
│   └── Customer-Success_v1_2024-03.md
└── 📁 Meeting-Protocols
    ├── 2025-11-15_Governance.md
    └── 2025-10-01_Governance.md

Tool Comparison: GlassFrog, Holaspirit, Notion, Custom

GlassFrog

Description: Official Holacracy tool from HolacracyOne.

Advantages:

• 100% constitutionally compliant
• Integrated project and meeting features
• Mobile app
• Training and support included
• Automatic consistency checking

Disadvantages:

• Monthly costs per user
• Little flexibility for customization
• Learning curve for new users
• English interface

Costs: From $6/User/Month (as of 2025)

For whom: Organizations practicing 100% Holacracy that have budget.

Holaspirit

Description: Alternative governance tool with focus on visualization.

Advantages:

• Visually appealing circle display
• OKR integration
• More flexible than GlassFrog
• Multilingual
• Org chart export

Disadvantages:

• Monthly costs
• Less strict constitutional adherence
• Can be oversized for small teams

Costs: From $8/User/Month (as of 2025)

For whom: Medium to large organizations that value visualization.

Notion

Description: All-in-one workspace that can be adapted for governance.

Advantages:

• Little to no additional costs
• Maximum flexibility
• Known to many teams
• Good collaboration
• Databases for structured data

Disadvantages:

• No Holacracy-specific structure
• Manual consistency maintenance needed
• No automatic validation
• Can quickly become confusing

Costs: From $0 (Free) to $10/User/Month (Business)

For whom: Small teams already using Notion.

Custom Solutions (Airtable, Coda, Sheets)

Description: Self-built governance systems based on database tools.

Advantages:

• Maximum customization
• Integration with existing systems
• No vendor lock-in
• Often free or cheap

Disadvantages:

• Development effort
• Maintenance effort
• No updates or support
• Risk of inconsistencies

For whom: Technically savvy teams with specific requirements.

Comparison Table

Criterion	GlassFrog	Holaspirit	Notion	Custom
Constitutional adherence	★★★★★	★★★★☆	★★☆☆☆	★★☆☆☆
Flexibility	★★☆☆☆	★★★☆☆	★★★★★	★★★★★
Visualization	★★★★☆	★★★★★	★★★☆☆	★★★☆☆
Cost	★★☆☆☆	★★☆☆☆	★★★★★	★★★★★
Onboarding	★★★☆☆	★★★☆☆	★★★★☆	★★☆☆☆
Mobile	★★★★☆	★★★★☆	★★★★☆	★★☆☆☆

Research Insight: Studies show that the success of governance tools depends more on consistent use than on features. The simplest tool that’s maintained is better than the best tool that’s outdated. [3]

Compliance and Legal Aspects

What Has Legal Relevance?

In most jurisdictions, Holacracy governance has no direct legal binding. But:

• Employment contracts: Can reference role documentation
• Powers of attorney: Domain assignments can map authority structures
• Audit trails: Relevant for ISO certifications
• Data protection: Consider personal data in records

GDPR Compliance

When documenting role holders, consider:

• Only store necessary personal data
• Enable deletion when leaving
• Clearly regulate access rights
• For external tools: Data processing agreement

Retention Periods

There are no legal retention periods for governance records. Recommendation:

• Active governance: Unlimited
• Archive: 5-10 years
• Personal data: Anonymize or delete after leaving

Common Documentation Mistakes

Mistake 1: Records Not Updated

Problem: Changes from governance meetings are not or delayed documented.

Consequence: No one knows what’s current.

Solution: Fixed routine: Update within 24 hours after governance meeting. Clearly define Secretary accountability.

Mistake 2: Inconsistent Formats

Problem: Everyone documents differently. No consistent structure.

Consequence: Records are hard to read and compare.

Solution: Create templates and use them consistently.

Mistake 3: Records Not Findable

Problem: The documentation exists, but no one can find it.

Consequence: Effectively no documentation.

Solution: Clear structure, one central entry point, regular communication about where records can be found.

Mistake 4: Too Much Detail

Problem: Every detail is documented, including meeting discussions.

Consequence: Important information gets lost in the mass.

Solution: Focus on outcomes: What was decided? Discussions don’t belong in official records.

Mistake 5: Too Little Detail

Problem: Only names and purpose are documented, no accountabilities.

Consequence: Unclear what’s expected of a role.

Solution: At minimum: Name, Purpose, Domains, Accountabilities for every role.

Mistake 6: No History

Problem: Old versions are overwritten instead of archived.

Consequence: No traceability, no organizational learning.

Solution: Keep changelog, archive old versions.

Mistake 7: Wrong Access Restrictions

Problem: Records are only accessible to certain people.

Consequence: Transparency principle is violated, Holacracy doesn’t work.

Solution: Make all governance records visible to everyone.

Governance Documentation at SI Labs

Our experiences over ten years:

Simplicity Over Features

We started with GlassFrog but switched to a simple Notion structure. Reason: Less complexity, more ownership.

24-Hour Rule

Our Secretary roles have a clear expectation: Within 24 hours after governance meeting, records are updated.

Changelog as Communication Channel

After every governance meeting, we post a brief changelog in our team channel. This increases visibility of changes.

Quarterly Review

Every three months we check our governance records for currency and consistency. Questions: Are there roles no one energizes anymore? Policies that are no longer relevant?

Onboarding via Records

New team members first get access to governance records. “Here you can see how we’re organized.”

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on the analysis of academic papers on organizational documentation and self-management systems as well as over ten years of practical experience with governance documentation at SI Labs.

Source selection:

• Studies on the role of documentation in distributed organizations
• Comparative analyses of governance tools
• Practitioner literature on records management

Limitations: Our recommendations are based on our specific experience with a medium-sized organization. Larger organizations may have different requirements.

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH has practiced Holacracy for over ten years and has tested various documentation tools and practices. We have no commercial relationships with the mentioned tool providers.

---

Sources

[1] Reitzig, Markus, and Maciejovsky, Boris. “Managers matter less than we think: How can organizations function without any middle management?” Journal of Organization Design 11 (2022): 91-106. DOI: 10.1007/s41469-022-00133-7 [Empirical study | 35 organizations | Citations: 12 | Quality: 64/100]

[2] Neubauer, Maximilian, et al. “Flexibility out of standardization.” International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior 25, no. 3 (2022): 181-198. DOI: 10.1108/ijotb-11-2020-0197 [Qualitative study | 2 organizations | Citations: 5 | Quality: 56/100]

[3] Wyrwich, Marlon, et al. “How Mercedes-Benz addresses digital transformation using Holacracy.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 34, no. 5 (2021): 1152-1171. DOI: 10.1108/jocm-12-2020-0395 [Case study | 1 organization | Citations: 28 | Quality: 65/100]

[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 Practice article | Multiple case studies | Citations: 312 | Quality: 72/100]