How Holacracy Succeeds: A Success Playbook for Self-Organization

What distinguishes successful Holacracy implementations from failed ones? This question concerns everyone considering self-organization. While our article Why Holacracy Fails analyzes the stumbling blocks, this guide focuses on the opposite: the patterns that enable success.

Our analysis of 655 academic papers identifies 50 studies documenting successful Holacracy implementations. From these studies, we extracted five consistent success patterns. These patterns are not guarantees, but they significantly increase the probability of success.

The difference from other Holacracy resources: we base our insights on research, not anecdotes. And we have ten years of hands-on experience with Holacracy at SI Labs.

The 5 Success Patterns

Pattern 1: Cultural Fit Before Framework Choice

The pattern: Successful organizations check their cultural readiness before choosing a framework. They understand that Holacracy only works if the underlying culture supports it.

The research: A comparative study with 95 employees in holacratic companies in Switzerland and Germany shows: person-organization fit is the strongest predictor of success. Employees with high openness (Big Five personality trait) show significantly better adaptation and satisfaction.

Recognizing Readiness Signals

Positive signals:

• Initiative already exists. Employees act without asking for permission. They solve problems instead of escalating them.
• Mistakes are shared, not hidden. There is a culture of openness where learning is more important than blame.
• Information flows horizontally. Teams coordinate directly without going through managers.
• Experimentation mindset is present. The organization tries new things even when not everything is perfectly planned.

Warning signals:

• “The boss decides that.” Employees wait for instructions from above.
• Information is hoarded. Knowledge is power, and power is protected.
• Mistakes are punished. The response to mistakes is blame, not learning.
• Change creates fear. New initiatives are perceived as threats.

The Assessment Process

Successful organizations use structured assessments before implementation:

Step 1: Anonymous survey Ask employees how they experience decisions. Who decides what? How does that feel?

Step 2: Analyze cultural artifacts What do meetings look like? Who talks how much? How are conflicts resolved?

Step 3: Check leadership readiness Are current leaders willing to transfer their authority to the system? Not just theoretically, but practically?

Step 4: Interpret results A readiness score provides orientation but is not automatic. Low readiness means not “never,” but “not yet” or “with more preparation.”

Research Insight: Organizations that conduct a structured readiness assessment before implementation show 40% higher success rates than those that begin implementation directly. (Source: Meta-analysis of 15 companies, 2024)

Pattern 2: Complete Leadership Commitment

The pattern: Successful implementations have leadership that commits fully and publicly to the new system. Half-hearted commitment is worse than no commitment.

The research: Analysis of failure cases consistently shows: when leadership reverts to old patterns during conflicts, employees interpret this as “Holacracy only applies when convenient.” This undermines the entire system.

What Complete Commitment Means

Visible behavior change: Leaders must themselves play by the new rules. They cannot expect others to change while retaining special privileges.

Public declaration: Adopting the constitution is a formal, public act. Previous leadership declares that from now on the rules of the system apply, not their personal decisions.

Consistency in crises: The real test comes in stressful situations. When problems arise and the old decision path is used, the signal is devastating.

Long-term timeline: Commitment also means patience. Leaders must be willing to endure 18+ months of transition without giving up.

The Commitment Protocol

Successful organizations document leadership commitment formally:

1. Written declaration: Leadership signs an adoption document that transfers their authority to the system.

2. Accountability mechanisms: There are clear processes when leadership members act against the constitution.

3. Regular reflection: Leaders regularly (monthly) reflect on their own behavior in the new system.

4. Public learning: When leaders make mistakes, they share them openly. This normalizes learning for everyone.

The “A Little Bit of Holacracy” Problem

Many organizations want to “try a little bit of Holacracy” or “adopt parts.” Research shows: this rarely works.

Why: Holacracy is an integrated system. The parts are interconnected. Governance processes only work if the constitution applies. The constitution only applies if leadership supports it. Leadership only supports it if they are fully committed.

The alternative: If you only want parts, look at Sociocracy 3.0. It offers modular patterns that can be introduced individually.

Pattern 3: Substantial Training Investment

The pattern: Successful organizations invest significant resources in training, not just documentation. They understand that Holacracy must be learned, not just explained.

The research: Analysis shows: “lack of training” is the second most common reason for failure, after half-hearted leadership commitment. Organizations systematically underestimate the training effort.

The Training Formula

Successful organizations follow a proven formula:

Facilitator training first: At least 2-3 people must be able to competently facilitate governance meetings. This requires deep process understanding and practical experience.

Basics for everyone: Every employee needs a basic understanding of roles, circles, and the difference between governance and tactical.

Deepening as needed: Lead Links, Rep Links, and frequent governance participants need more intensive training.

Regular refreshers: Quarterly refresher sessions keep knowledge current and address new challenges.

Training vs. Documentation

Documentation	Training
Explains the “what”	Conveys the “how”
Can be ignored	Requires engagement
No questions possible	Dialog and clarification
One-time effort	Ongoing investment
Passive learning	Active learning

The mistake: Many organizations create extensive documentation and think that is sufficient. It is not.

The reality: People learn Holacracy through practice and guidance, not through reading. Facilitator training, role-play sessions, and guided learning are indispensable.

Planning Training Budget

A rule of thumb for training investment:

Component	Investment
Facilitator training (2-3 people)	2-4 days per person
Basics workshop (everyone)	1 day
Practice support (first 3 months)	4-8 hours/week
Refresher (quarterly)	2 hours
External coaching (optional)	As needed

The insight: Training is not a one-time expense but an ongoing investment. Successful organizations budget training as a running item, not project costs.

Pattern 4: Phased Introduction

The pattern: Successful organizations introduce Holacracy gradually, not as a big bang. They start small, learn, and then scale.

The research: Analysis of failure cases shows: “too fast scaling” is a common mistake. Before one circle works, more are added. Problems multiply.

The Phase Strategy

Phase 1: Pilot (Month 1-3)

• One circle begins with Holacracy
• Intensive support and coaching
• Weekly reflection and adjustment
• Making mistakes and learning from them

Phase 2: Expansion (Month 4-9)

• Additional circles are included
• The pilot circle becomes the reference
• Cross-links are established
• Common governance standards develop

Phase 3: Integration (Month 10-18)

• All circles work holacratically
• Anchor Circle is established
• Processes are practiced
• Focus shifts to optimization

Phase 4: Maturation (18+ months)

• Holacracy is “normal”
• Independent further development
• Adaptations to organization-specific needs
• Coaching needs decrease

Pilot Selection

Ideal pilot circle:

• Medium-sized (5-15 people)
• Motivated participants
• Manageable external dependencies
• Leadership support
• Tolerance for experiments

Non-ideal pilot circle:

• Too small (under 5) - too little dynamic
• Too large (over 20) - too complex for the start
• Skeptical participants - resistance from the beginning
• Many external dependencies - constant friction
• Under high pressure - no capacity for learning

The Big Bang Mistake

Some organizations opt for immediate, complete transition. This can work but is riskier:

Pro big bang:

• Everyone is immediately in the same system
• No coordination between “old” and “new” areas
• Faster transition

Contra big bang:

• No room for learning before scaling
• Mistakes immediately affect the entire organization
• Higher burden for everyone simultaneously
• Less opportunity for correction

Our recommendation: Start with a pilot, unless your organization is very small (under 30 people) or already has considerable experience with self-organization.

Pattern 5: Adaptive Rather Than Dogmatic

The pattern: Successful organizations follow the framework but not blindly. They adapt when necessary without undermining the basic system.

The research: Analysis shows two extremes: organizations that follow every rule of the constitution literally, and those that “do their own thing.” Both fail more often than those who find a middle way.

Finding the Balance

The first phase (0-12 months): Follow the framework

In the initial phase, it is important to practice the standard framework. Why:

• You do not yet fully understand the system
• Adaptations without understanding are risky
• The constitution is proven and well-designed
• Consistency helps learning

The second phase (12+ months): Reflect and adapt

After a year of practice, you have enough experience to make informed adaptations:

• Which processes work well?
• Where are there recurring problems?
• What does not fit your culture?
• What could be improved?

Typical Adaptations

From our experience and research: these adaptations are common and usually successful:

Meeting frequency: Instead of monthly marathon governance meetings, many organizations switch to shorter, more frequent sessions (every two weeks).

Asynchronous governance: Simple, uncontroversial proposals can be processed asynchronously (e.g., via Slack) if no one objects within a defined period.

Flexible cross-links: Instead of permanent cross-links, these can be temporary and project-based to reduce meeting load.

Integrated retrospectives: Holacracy plus regular retrospectives for meta-reflection: How is our Holacracy working?

Adaptations That Fail

These adaptations are risky and often fail:

Lead Link as “manager”: Equipping the Lead Link with manager powers that go beyond the constitution.

Governance bypass: Making structural decisions outside governance meetings because it is “faster.”

Selective constitution: Adopting only the “pleasant” parts of the constitution.

No objection testing: Not checking objections for validity but accepting every criticism as an objection.

The Success Checklist

Based on the five patterns, here is a checklist for your implementation:

Before Starting

• Cultural readiness is checked
• Leadership is fully committed
• Training budget is allocated
• Pilot circle is identified
• 18+ month timeframe is accepted

During Implementation

• Facilitators are trained
• Basics training is conducted
• Constitution is formally adopted
• Weekly reflection takes place
• Problems are seen as learning opportunities

After 6 Months

• Pilot circle works stably
• Expansion is planned or begun
• Training continues
• Leadership commitment is unchanged
• First adaptations are reflected upon

After 12 Months

• Multiple circles work holacratically
• Processes are practiced
• Informed adaptations are made
• Employee satisfaction is measured
• Long-term planning is established

Success Metrics

How do you know if your implementation is succeeding? These metrics help:

Quantitative Metrics

Metric	Signal for Success
Governance meeting duration	Decreases over time (practiced process)
Open tensions	Are processed promptly
Role stability	Fewer changes after initial phase
Voluntary turnover	Remains stable or decreases after transition
Meeting attendance	Remains high

Qualitative Metrics

Metric	Signal for Success
Employee feedback	Positive, with constructive criticism
Decision speed	Feels faster
Role clarity	Employees know who is responsible for what
Conflict resolution	Addressed in governance, not escalated
Autonomy experience	Employees report more freedom to shape

The Most Important Question

Ultimately, the most important metric is simple: Would you do it again?

Ask after 12-18 months: If we could turn back time, would we choose Holacracy again? The answer says more than all quantitative metrics.

Conclusion

Holacracy does not succeed by accident. It succeeds through conscious work on five patterns:

1. Cultural fit: Check your readiness before choosing the framework.
2. Leadership commitment: Complete and public, not half-hearted.
3. Training investment: Substantial and ongoing, not one-time.
4. Phased introduction: Start small, learn, scale.
5. Adaptive practice: Follow the framework, but not blindly.

These patterns are not guarantees. But they significantly increase your chances.

At SI Labs, we introduced Holacracy over ten years ago. The journey was challenging but transformative. We experienced all these patterns, some by chance, some by conscious decision.

If you begin the journey, do so with open eyes. Holacracy is not an easy path. But for the right organizations, with the right preparation, it is a rewarding one.

---

This is part of our series on self-organization. Further articles: Holacracy: A Practitioner’s Guide, What Research Says, Why Holacracy Fails, Holacracy at SI Labs.

The insights in this article are based on the analysis of 50 success studies from our research synthesis of 655 academic papers on Holacracy and self-organization.