Holacracy at SI Labs: Ten Years of Self-Organization Experience

Holacracy is a self-organization framework that distributes authority through roles, circles, and governance processes. At SI Labs, we have practiced this framework for over ten years—not as an experiment or pilot project, but as our fundamental way of working. During this time, we have celebrated successes, weathered crises, and continuously evolved how we work.

This article shares our genuine experience with Holacracy. No polished success stories, no theoretical considerations—just an honest look at what self-organization looks like in practice. What works, what does not work, and what we would do differently.

Why We Adopted Holacracy

The decision to adopt Holacracy did not arise from following a trend. It came from a concrete tension we could no longer ignore.

The Starting Point

SI Labs was founded in 2008 as Service Innovation Labs, a company that helps other organizations become more innovative. From the beginning, our focus was on innovation, design thinking, and agile methods.

But internally, we worked differently. We had traditional hierarchies, defined responsibilities, and a typical decision-making process: important matters go up, decisions come down.

At some point, that felt wrong. We talked to clients about agility and personal responsibility, but did not live it ourselves. This discrepancy gnawed at us.

The Search for an Alternative

We began searching for alternatives. The questions:

• How can an organization function without traditional hierarchy?
• How are decisions made when no boss decides?
• How does structure remain intact without someone imposing it from above?

We came across various approaches: agile teams, self-organized networks, sociocracy. And then Holacracy.

Holacracy appealed to us because it was not just a philosophy but a concrete rulebook. The Constitution gave us a framework to orient ourselves. That was more important than we initially thought.

The Decision

The decision to adopt Holacracy was not unanimous. There were skeptics on the team:

“That sounds like a lot of bureaucracy.”

“Who actually decides then?”

“What happens when there are conflicts?”

But there were also enthusiasts who saw the opportunity for more personal responsibility.

The founders ultimately made the decision—paradoxically, a hierarchical decision to abolish hierarchy. They were convinced that Holacracy fit our work and were ready to surrender their own power to the system.

The First Year: The Learning Curve

The first year with Holacracy was the hardest. We made mistakes, learned, adapted, and made new mistakes.

The Adoption

We adopted the Holacracy Constitution on a Friday afternoon. The founders signed the document that transferred their authority to the system. Starting Monday, the new rules applied.

In retrospect, that was naive. We had read the Constitution but not truly understood it. We had no facilitator training. We thought we could “just try it out.”

The First Governance Meetings

Our first governance meeting lasted four and a half hours. We tried to process three agenda items and completed one.

The problem: No one held the process. Every clarifying question became a discussion. Every reaction became a counter-proposal. Objections were not tested for validity but debated endlessly.

After the meeting, everyone was exhausted and frustrated. “If this is Holacracy, I do not want it,” someone said.

The First Adjustment

We quickly recognized that we needed facilitation. One of us attended a training, came back, and moderated the next meeting much more tightly.

The difference was palpable. The meeting lasted 90 minutes instead of four and a half hours. We processed all agenda items.

The lesson: Holacracy only works with competent facilitation. This is not a nice-to-have but essential.

The First Roles

The initial role mapping was chaotic. We tried to translate our existing job titles into roles. That did not work.

A “project manager” suddenly had five different roles: client communication, resource planning, quality assurance, team coordination, reporting. That was overwhelming.

We learned: Roles must be defined around work, not around people. One person can have many roles, but each role should be clearly delineated.

The Crisis at Six Months

After about six months, we reached a low point. Governance meetings felt productive, but daily work had hardly changed. People continued waiting for instructions. Some missed clear leadership.

In a heated discussion, someone suggested abolishing Holacracy again. “It just does not work for us.”

We decided against it. Not because we were certain it would work, but because giving up seemed premature. We had not tried enough yet.

That decision to persevere was, in retrospect, decisive.

Research Insight: Research confirms our experience: The “adoption valley” after 6 months is a documented phenomenon. An analysis of 655 papers shows 30 studies documenting empowerment effects versus 9 highlighting cognitive load. The ratio improves significantly after the 18th month. (Source: SI Labs Meta-Study, Contradictions Database)

Stabilization: Years Two and Three

After the crisis, things began to stabilize. Holacracy evolved from a burden into a tool that helped us work better.

Meetings Became Shorter and More Focused

With more practice, our governance meetings became more efficient. What initially took hours, we accomplished in 45 minutes. The key: Everyone knew the process, and the facilitator had to intervene less.

We learned to respect the meeting phases:

In the clarifying phase, we only asked genuine questions, not disguised opinions. The facilitator interrupted immediately when someone deviated: “That is a reaction, not a clarifying question. We will get to that shortly.”

In the reaction round, we listened to each other without debating. Everyone got their moment without interruption.

For objections, testing was strict: “Does this proposal cause concrete harm to the organization?” Many supposed objections turned out to be concerns that could not block the meeting.

Tactical meetings became the heartbeat of our week. The triage process—“What do you need?”—helped us process tensions quickly. Instead of asking “How do we solve this completely?”, we asked “What is the next step?”

A typical tactical meeting today lasts 60 minutes. We complete 15-20 triage items. This works because no one gives long explanations but gets to the point quickly.

Roles Became Clearer and More Dynamic

Over the months, we continuously refined our roles. What started as vague accountabilities (“take care of marketing”) became precise (“create and send monthly newsletter,” “plan and publish social media posts,” “manage marketing budget”).

This precision had an unexpected effect: fewer conflicts. When it is clear who is responsible for what, there is less friction. Discussions about responsibilities almost completely disappeared.

At the same time, we learned to keep roles dynamic. When an accountability no longer fit, we changed it. When a new task emerged, we defined a new role. The system was alive, not static.

An example: When we began producing more podcasts, the role “Podcast Producer” emerged in a governance session. Within a week, we had clear accountabilities, someone in the role, and could get started. In a traditional structure, that would have taken months.

The Circle Structure Evolved

Initially, we had a single circle for everything. That worked while we were small. As we grew, it became unwieldy.

We began forming sub-circles:

• A Delivery Circle for client projects
• A Business Development Circle for sales and marketing
• An Operations Circle for finance, HR, and IT

Each circle got a Lead Link and a Rep Link. Suddenly we had a structure that enabled specialization without losing sight of the overall organization.

New Employees: The Onboarding Challenge

When we hired new employees, the importance of onboarding became clear. People who had never worked in a self-organized way needed intensive support.

The first onboarding attempts were unstructured. We threw new colleagues into their first governance meeting and expected them to understand what was happening. That did not work. The new people were confused, asked many questions during the meeting, and slowed everything down.

We developed a systematic onboarding process:

Before the first meeting:

• One-hour introduction to Holacracy fundamentals
• Review the most important sections of the Constitution together
• Clarify questions, address uncertainties

The first meetings:

• Accompanied by an experienced colleague
• After the meeting: debriefing on what happened and why
• Encouragement to ask questions, but outside the meeting

The first weeks:

• A mentor for Holacracy questions, available anytime
• Weekly check-ins: “How are you feeling? What is still unclear?”
• Gentle pressure to bring in their first tensions

After three months:

• Evaluation: Has the person settled in?
• Feedback: What can we improve in onboarding?

New employees who were well onboarded integrated quickly. New employees we neglected struggled for months, and some resigned. Onboarding was no longer a side matter but its own role with clear accountabilities.

What We Have Learned

Ten years of Holacracy have taught us much. Some insights we can share:

Tensions Are Fuel, Not Problems

In traditional organizations, tensions have negative connotations. Conflicts are avoided, problems swept under the rug.

In Holacracy, we have learned to see tensions differently. A tension is the difference between what is and what could be. It is a hint at improvement potential.

When someone brings a tension to a tactical meeting, we do not ask: “Why do you have a problem?” We ask: “What do you need to solve this?”

This shift in perspective has changed our culture. Tensions are openly addressed because they lead to improvements.

Perfection Is the Enemy of Good

Initially, we tried to define perfect roles and make perfect governance proposals. That led to analysis paralysis.

Holacracy has taught us: “Good enough for now, safe enough to try.” A governance proposal does not have to be perfect. It only has to be better than the status quo and cause no harm.

This attitude has made us faster. Instead of planning endlessly, we try things and adapt.

Facilitation Is Not Optional

We have learned: Without good facilitation, Holacracy does not work. A meeting without a competent facilitator drifts into discussion and produces frustration.

We continuously invest in facilitator training. Multiple team members can moderate governance meetings. That distributes the load and provides backup.

Self-Organization Requires Discipline

Some think self-organization means chaos or “everyone does what they want.” The opposite is true. Holacracy requires more discipline than traditional hierarchies.

You must know and follow the rules. You must bring tensions in a structured way. You must formulate valid objections.

This discipline does not come naturally. It must be learned and practiced.

Not Everyone Is Suited for Self-Organization

A painful realization: Not every person is suited to self-organization. Some people need clear instructions and defined hierarchies. That is not a weakness but a preference. And it is better to recognize this early than to end in frustration later.

We have experienced cases where people came to us, excited about the idea of self-organization, but then struggled with the reality. The freedom that Holacracy offers felt like disorientation to them. They missed someone telling them what to do.

In these cases, we tried to support them: provide more structure, offer closer guidance. Sometimes that worked, sometimes not. Some people left us, and that was the right thing for both sides.

We have learned to consider this in hiring. In job interviews, we explain how we work and watch for reactions. We ask: “How does it feel when no one tells you what to do?” The answer is often revealing.

Those who become visibly uncomfortable or ask for many rules and clear guidelines are probably not a good fit. That is not a rejection of the person but honesty about how we work.

Research Insight: A comparative study with 95 employees in holacratic companies in Switzerland and Germany confirms this observation: Person-Organization Fit is decisive. Employees with high openness (Big Five) show higher satisfaction in Holacracy, while those with high need for structure struggle. “Holacracy is a modern form of organizational governance that is not suitable for everyone,” the study notes. (Source: Comparative Study CH/DE, 2023, 22 citations)

How We Work Today

After ten years, a stable pattern has emerged. Here is a glimpse into our daily life with Holacracy.

Our Circle Structure

We currently have four main circles:

The Anchor Circle encompasses the entire organization. Overarching topics are handled here: company strategy, budget, major structural changes.

The Delivery Circle is responsible for all client projects. Most team members have roles here. The circle organizes itself on how to execute projects.

The Business Development Circle handles sales, marketing, and partnerships. Fewer people, but critical for growth.

The Operations Circle manages everything not directly related to clients or sales: finance, HR, IT, office.

Each circle has regular tactical meetings (weekly) and governance meetings (every two weeks).

A Typical Day

A day at SI Labs does not look much different from other companies: people work, meet, communicate. The difference lies in the details.

When someone has a problem, they do not wait for instructions. They check whether the problem falls within their domain. If yes, they act. If no, they bring it as a tension to the next tactical meeting or speak directly to the responsible role.

When a structural change is needed, it is handled in the next governance meeting. That can take two weeks, but then it is done.

Decisions are documented. Governance changes are visible to all. No one has to guess what was decided.

The Tools We Use

We use GlassFrog to document our roles, circles, and governance decisions. Anyone can look up at any time who holds which role and what accountabilities belong to it.

Slack is our communication tool, including a channel for asynchronous governance proposals.

For tactical and governance meetings, we use a fixed agenda structure linked in the calendar. Everyone knows when each meeting takes place and how it proceeds.

What Remains Challenging

Even after ten years, not everything is perfect. Some challenges remain:

Facilitator quality varies. Not every facilitator is equally good. Some meetings are more productive than others, depending on who moderates.

New employees need time. Even with better onboarding, it takes time until people have internalized Holacracy.

Regression tendencies in stressful phases. When things get hectic, people sometimes fall back on old patterns: quick decisions without the proper process.

The balance between process and pragmatism. Sometimes the governance process feels slow when you want to act quickly.

These challenges will not disappear. They are part of working with self-organization.

Our Adaptations

We do not blindly follow HolacracyOne’s standard Constitution. Over the years, we have made adaptations that work for us. These adaptations are the result of years of iteration, not from day one.

Important: We recommend starting with the standard Constitution and making adaptations only after one to two years. Only then do you understand the system well enough to make meaningful changes.

Shorter, More Frequent Governance Meetings

The standard recommendation: monthly governance meetings. We hold bi-weekly, shorter sessions—typically 45-60 minutes.

The advantage: Tensions stay fresh. If you have to wait a month to address a structural problem, frustration builds. Two weeks is more bearable. Also, meetings stay focused because fewer agenda items accumulate.

The disadvantage: More meeting time overall. We accept this as a trade-off because the quality of conversations is better.

Asynchronous Governance for Simple Changes

For uncontroversial governance proposals, we have introduced an asynchronous process. The process:

1. A proposal is posted in a dedicated Slack channel
2. The format follows the governance structure: tension, proposal, expected impact
3. If no one raises an objection within 48 hours, the proposal is considered accepted
4. If objections arise, the topic moves to the next synchronous meeting

This saves time for the bigger topics. Simple role adjustments, small policy changes, or clarifications do not need to fill an entire meeting. The important, controversial topics get more space.

Integrated Retrospectives

Every two months, we hold a meta-retrospective: How is our Holacracy working? What can we improve? This is not standard Holacracy, but valuable for us.

In these retrospectives, we ask:

• Which meetings work well? Which do not?
• Are there recurring tensions we should address structurally?
• How do people feel about their role distribution?
• What do we want to change about our Holacracy process?

This gives us a framework to question the system itself rather than taking it as given.

Flexible Cross-Links

In the standard Constitution, cross-links are relatively formal and permanent. We have made them more flexible: cross-links emerge project-by-project and disappear when no longer needed.

An example: When a large client project needs close coordination between Delivery and Marketing, we establish a temporary cross-link. After the project ends, it is dissolved.

This reduces meeting load (cross-links otherwise must participate in two circles) and enables needs-based coordination when it is actually needed.

Complementary Practices

Beyond Holacracy, we use complementary practices that are not part of the Constitution:

Open Book Management: Financial transparency reinforces self-organization. We share our numbers internally so people can make informed decisions.

Regular check-ins: Beyond Holacracy meetings, we have informal check-ins for personal exchange.

Peer feedback rounds: Structured feedback sessions not provided for in Holacracy but that strengthen our culture.

Impact on Our Work

Holacracy has changed how we work and how we work with clients. The effects are profound and often subtle.

We Live What We Advise

The biggest advantage: When we talk to clients about agile organization, we can speak from experience. We are not selling theory; we are sharing practice.

This shows in conversations. When a client asks: “How does this actually work for you?”, we can answer concretely. We describe our governance meetings, our role structure, our challenges. This is not a marketing brochure but real experience.

Clients sense the difference. Consultants who work in a self-organized way have a different perspective than those who only know it from books.

An example: A client asked us how long it takes until Holacracy “works.” We could answer honestly: “For us, it took about 18 months until we worked fluidly. The first six months were difficult.” This honesty creates trust.

Rapid Adaptation to Client Needs

Holacracy enables us to react quickly to changes. When a new project requires different competencies, we can create new roles in a governance session.

A concrete example: A client needed expertise in an area we did not cover. In a traditional structure, that would have meant: job posting, application process, onboarding. Weeks to months.

In Holacracy: We defined a new role with clear accountabilities in a governance session. A team member took on the role temporarily while we brought in external support. Within a week, we were operational.

This agility is a real competitive advantage. We can respond to client needs before the competition has written their job posting.

Distributed Decisions Accelerate Us

Decisions are made where the knowledge is. An employee with the right role does not have to ask whether they may decide. They decide.

That sounds trivial but has enormous impact. In traditional structures, much time is spent obtaining approvals. A project lead has to ask the department head, who asks the division head. By the time the decision is made, the opportunity is lost.

With us: If someone can make a decision within their domain, they make it. Immediately. Without checking back. That accelerates us many times over.

The founders are relieved. They no longer have to approve every operational decision. Their time flows into strategic questions, not micromanagement.

Research Insight: A study on distributed decision-making shows: Organizations with clearly defined domains make operational decisions on average 40% faster than those with traditional approval structures. Decision quality remains constant because knowledge is concentrated at the point of decision. (Source: Theme T00 - Core Decision Making, 73 papers)

Transparency Creates Trust

Holacracy forces transparency. Roles and accountabilities are documented and visible to all. Anyone can look up who is responsible for what. Governance changes happen publicly in meetings, not in back rooms.

This transparency has created trust. No one has to puzzle over who is responsible for what. No one has to wonder why a decision was made, because governance decisions are traceable.

A side effect: Less politics. In traditional hierarchies, there is often informal power that is not visible. Who knows whom? Who influences whom? In Holacracy, the power structure is explicit. Roles are defined. Domains are assigned. That reduces political maneuvering.

Personal Responsibility as Culture

Holacracy has created a culture of personal responsibility. People do not wait for instructions; they act. They see a problem and address it—either directly or through governance.

This is not self-evident. In many organizations, “waiting” is the safe option. Those who act risk criticism. Those who wait cannot be criticized.

With us, it is the opposite. Those who see a problem and do not address it must answer why. Personal responsibility is the expectation, not the exception.

What We Would Do Differently

Looking back, there are things we would do differently if we were starting over.

Invest in Facilitator Training Earlier

We invested in training too late. The first months could have been easier with a trained facilitator from the start.

Recommendation: Invest in training before you start, not after.

Communicate Expectations More Clearly

We underestimated how attached people were to old patterns. Some still expected clear instructions even after we had adopted Holacracy.

Recommendation: Communicate clearly what changes and what does not. Repeat it often.

Celebrate Small Wins Earlier

In the difficult early period, we forgot to celebrate successes. Every governance proposal that solved a real problem was a success. We often did not appreciate it.

Recommendation: Celebrate small wins. They keep motivation high.

More Patient Onboarding

We sometimes threw new employees into the deep end too quickly. That led to frustration on both sides.

Recommendation: Take time for onboarding. The investment pays off.

Is Holacracy Right for You?

We are often asked: “Should we adopt Holacracy?”

Our honest answer: It depends.

Holacracy fits organizations that:

• Have genuine commitment to self-organization, not just interest
• Are willing to go through a difficult learning phase
• Have leaders who want to and can give up power
• Have a culture that supports personal responsibility
• Have enough resources for training and support

Holacracy fits less well for organizations that:

• Expect quick results
• See self-organization as a trend, not a fundamental change
• Have leaders who do not want to give up their power
• Have a strongly hierarchical culture that works
• Cannot provide resources for implementation

If you are unsure: Talk to practitioners. Visit an organization that lives Holacracy. Read about successes and failures.

Conclusion

Ten years of Holacracy at SI Labs have changed us. We have become more agile, more transparent, and more personally responsible. Not without struggles, not without setbacks, but overall in a direction we would not want to miss.

Holacracy is not a cure-all. It does not solve all problems and creates new ones. But for us, it is the right choice. It fits our work, our culture, and our values.

If you are considering adopting Holacracy, think long-term. The first six months will be difficult. The first year will be a learning curve. But if you persevere, something worthwhile can emerge.

We are available for questions. If you want to learn from our experience or need support on your own journey, reach out to us.

---

This article is part of our series on self-organization. Further articles: Holacracy: A Practitioner’s Guide, How to Implement Holacracy, Holacracy vs. Sociocracy, Why Holacracy Fails. For more case studies, see our Holacracy Case Studies Overview.

The Research Insights in this article are based on an analysis of 655 academic papers on Holacracy and self-organization (2012-2025).