Article
Self-OrganizationCommon Meeting Mistakes in Holacracy (and How to Avoid Them)
The 10 most common meeting mistakes in Holacracy organizations and concrete solutions from practice.
Every team makes them – but not every team learns from them. Meeting mistakes in Holacracy cost time, frustrate participants, and undermine trust in the process. The good news: Most mistakes are predictable and avoidable.
At SI Labs, we’ve made all these mistakes – some multiple times. Here are the ten most common, with concrete solutions.
Mistake 1: Discussions Instead of Outputs
Symptom: The meeting feels like a debate. Opinions are exchanged, but nothing is decided.
Example: “We should talk about the pricing strategy.” → 20 minutes later: Still talking, no result.
Why it happens:
- The Facilitator doesn’t intervene
- No clear tension formulated
- Habit from traditional meetings
Solution: The Facilitator asks: “What’s your concrete need? Information, action, or decision?”
Don’t accept vague “discussions” as agenda items. Every topic needs a concrete output.
Research Insight: Studies show that 60% of meeting time is spent on discussions that lead to no decision. Holacracy’s output-focused approach dramatically reduces this wasted time. [1]
Mistake 2: Governance in Tactical
Symptom: Structural questions are discussed in the Tactical Meeting.
Example: “We should have a new role for social media.” “I’m unclear who’s responsible for X.”
Why it happens:
- Structural tensions feel urgent
- The next Governance Meeting is still a week away
- Confusion about the difference
Solution: The Facilitator recognizes the pattern: “That sounds like a structural question. That belongs in Governance. Do you want to note it?”
Do NOT solve structural questions in Tactical. They don’t work there.
Mistake 3: Skipping Check-in
Symptom: The meeting starts immediately with checklists or triage.
Example: “We’re short on time, let’s get started.”
Why it happens:
- Time pressure
- Check-in seems “soft” or unnecessary
- Inexperienced Facilitators
Solution: Even a one-word check-in is better than none. It creates presence and signals: “Now we’re here.”
Time saved by skipping: 2 minutes. Time lost through lack of presence: Often more.
See: Check-in Rounds
Mistake 4: The Facilitator Has Opinions
Symptom: The Facilitator gets involved in content.
Example: “As Facilitator, I think we should choose Option A.”
Why it happens:
- The Facilitator is also an expert on the topic
- Difficulty separating roles
- Unclear understanding of the Facilitator role
Solution: If the Facilitator wants to contribute content:
- “I’m briefly stepping out of the Facilitator role.”
- Make contribution as participant.
- “I’m resuming the Facilitator role.”
Or: Hand off facilitation for this topic.
Mistake 5: Agenda Items Get Hijacked
Symptom: Someone else “solves” the agenda owner’s problem.
Example:
- Agenda owner: “I need clarity on Process X.”
- Other: “We should do it this way: [solution proposal].”
- Discussion ensues.
- Agenda owner gets ignored.
Why it happens:
- Helpfulness (well-intentioned)
- Expertise wants to shine
- Facilitator doesn’t protect
Solution: The Facilitator protects the agenda owner: “This is [Name]‘s tension. Let’s first understand what they need before offering solutions.”
The agenda owner decides when there’s enough information.
Mistake 6: Project Updates Become Reports
Symptom: The project phase takes 30 minutes instead of 5.
Example:
- Secretary: “Project: Website relaunch.”
- Role: “So, last week we finished the design, then there was a problem with hosting, and now we’re waiting for feedback from…”
Why it happens:
- Need for visibility
- Fear that “no change” is interpreted as doing nothing
- Habit from traditional status meetings
Solution: The Facilitator interrupts: “One word or sentence is enough. If you need input, bring it as a triage topic.”
“No change” is a legitimate update. It doesn’t mean “did nothing.”
Mistake 7: No Clear Outputs
Symptom: After triage, it’s unclear what happens next.
Example:
- “We’ll keep an eye on that.”
- “Someone should look into that.”
- “We’ll continue discussing next time.”
Why it happens:
- Complex topics without clear solutions
- Facilitator accepts vague results
- Fear of responsibility
Solution: Every triage topic MUST end with one of the five outputs:
- Information shared
- Project added
- Next action defined
- Request made
- Governance tension noted
“We’ll observe that” is not an output.
Mistake 8: Too Many Participants
Symptom: The meeting has 12+ participants. Most just listen.
Why it happens:
- “Everyone should be informed.”
- FOMO (Fear of Missing Out)
- Unclear Circle boundaries
Solution:
- Only Circle members in Tactical
- Share information asynchronously
- For large Circles: Form Sub-Circles
Optimal meeting size is 5-8 people. Above that, it becomes unproductive.
Mistake 9: Not Testing Objections Properly
Symptom: In Governance, concerns are treated as objections.
Example:
- “I’m not sure if that will work.” → Accepted as objection.
- Proposal gets adjusted or rejected.
- The problem: It was just discomfort, not a valid objection.
Why it happens:
- Desire for harmony
- Unfamiliarity with test questions
- Fear of rejecting objections
Solution: The Facilitator tests every objection:
- “Does the proposal cause harm, or just prevent an improvement?”
- “Is this harm to one of your roles?”
- “Does the harm come from the proposal, not from a failure to agree?”
Only valid objections get integrated.
Mistake 10: Meetings Get Skipped
Symptom: “No Tactical this week, we’re too busy.”
Why it happens:
- Meetings are seen as overhead
- Short-term urgency beats long-term structure
- Lack of trust in meeting value
Solution: Meetings happen. Always. Even if short.
If there’s really little to discuss: 15-minute Tactical. But don’t cancel. The rhythm matters.
Bonus: Meta-Mistakes
No Reflection on Meetings
Symptom: Meetings are never evaluated. Problems repeat.
Solution: Every few weeks, a brief retro: What works? What doesn’t?
Process as End in Itself
Symptom: The process becomes more important than the result.
Solution: The process serves the result. If it doesn’t help, adapt.
No Practice
Symptom: New Facilitators are thrown in the deep end.
Solution: Training, co-facilitation, feedback rounds.
Research Insight: The largest empirical study on Holacracy implementations (Pfister et al., 2021) confirms: Mistakes during the introduction phase are normal and expected. The researchers found: “The transformation brings with it various challenges, especially for employees and teams that need to be resolved, so organizations can realize their potential.” The key is the ability to reflect and adapt. [3]
Conclusion: Mistakes Are Learning Opportunities
Everyone makes mistakes. The difference between good and bad teams: Good teams recognize their mistakes and adapt.
When a meeting goes wrong:
- Name what happened
- Understand why
- Adapt for next time
And then: move on. Holacracy gets better with practice.
Research Methodology
This article is based on observations from Holacracy implementations and own practice at SI Labs.
Source selection:
- Meeting science (Cambridge Handbook)
- Empirical studies on Holacracy implementation (Pfister et al.)
- Holacracy community reports
- Own error analysis
Limitations:
- Mistakes are context-dependent
- Not all solutions fit everywhere
Disclosure
SI Labs GmbH has practiced Holacracy for over ten years. We’ve made all the described mistakes ourselves.
Sources
[1] Bernstein, Ethan, et al. “Beyond the Holacracy Hype.” Harvard Business Review 94, no. 7/8 (2016): 38-49. [HBR Practitioner Article | Multiple Case Studies | Citations: 312 | Quality: 72/100]
[2] Allen, Joseph A., Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, and Steven G. Rogelberg. “The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science.” Cambridge University Press, 2015. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107589735 [Handbook | Meta-Analysis | Citations: 248 | Quality: 85/100]
[3] Pfister, Susanne, and Thomas Nesper. “Change the Way of Working: Ways into Self-organization with the Use of Holacracy.” European Management Review 18, no. 4 (2021): 405-420. DOI: 10.1111/emre.12457 [Field Research | n=43 Interviews | Citations: 43 | Quality: 78/100]