The Rep Link Role in Holacracy: Voice of the Circle Outward

The Rep Link role is the counterpart to the Lead Link and completes the double-linking between circles. While the Lead Link carries the super-circle’s purpose downward, the Rep Link carries the sub-circle’s tensions upward. Without a functioning Rep Link, the system lacks half of its feedback loop.

At SI Labs, we have learned that the Rep Link is one of the most underrated roles. When filled well, structural problems resolve before they escalate. When neglected, tensions accumulate in the sub-circle that are never addressed.

What Is the Rep Link Role?

The Rep Link role (Representative Link) is an elected structural role in every sub-circle. It represents the sub-circle’s perspective and needs in the governance meetings of the super-circle.

Core function: The Rep Link is the voice of the sub-circle in the super-circle.

The Accountabilities

According to the Holacracy Constitution:

1. Carry tensions upward

The Rep Link brings tensions from the sub-circle into the super-circle’s governance that the sub-circle cannot resolve itself.

2. Participate in the super-circle

The Rep Link participates in the governance and tactical meetings of the super-circle.

3. Create transparency

The Rep Link reports to the sub-circle about relevant developments in the super-circle.

Domains

The Rep Link has no specific domains. Its authority lies in participation and voice, not in exclusive control.

Research Insight: The double-link system is a distinguishing feature of Holacracy compared to other self-organized models. Research shows that bidirectional information flows between organizational levels are critical for adaptivity. [1]

Double-Linking Explained

The double-linking concept is fundamental to Holacracy and how circles connect.

The Problem with Single Links

In traditional hierarchies, there’s typically only one link between levels: the manager. The manager represents their department’s interests upward and carries decisions downward.

The problem: One person cannot optimally represent both levels’ interests simultaneously. Conflicts of interest are inevitable.

The Double-Link Solution

Holacracy solves this through two separate links:

Lead Link (top-down)

• Assigned by the super-circle
• Represents the super-circle’s interests
• Carries purpose and priorities downward

Rep Link (bottom-up)

• Elected by the sub-circle
• Represents the sub-circle’s interests
• Carries tensions and perspectives upward

Information Flow in Both Directions

Super-Circle
    ↓ Lead Link: Purpose, priorities, strategy
    ↑ Rep Link: Tensions, perspectives, feedback
Sub-Circle

This bidirectional connection ensures that:

• The sub-circle understands the overall system’s direction (via Lead Link)
• The super-circle understands the sub-circle’s reality (via Rep Link)

The Rep Link Election

Unlike the Lead Link, the Rep Link is elected.

Election Process

Who votes: All members of the sub-circle (except the Lead Link)

Who is eligible: Any member of the sub-circle (except the Lead Link)

Election procedure: Integrative election process:

1. Each circle member nominates someone (including themselves)
2. Everyone briefly explains their nomination
3. Change round: Everyone may change their nomination
4. The Facilitator proposes the candidate with the most nominations
5. Objection round: Are there objections to this candidate?
6. Integration if needed, then election

Why Election Instead of Assignment?

The Rep Link should represent the circle, not the super-circle. Therefore, the circle elects its own representative. The Lead Link, who comes from the super-circle, has no vote in the election.

Term

The typical term is 6-12 months, then re-election. Re-election is possible.

Carrying Tensions Upward

This is the Rep Link’s core function.

What Is a “Tension Upward”?

A tension that the sub-circle cannot resolve itself because:

• It exceeds the sub-circle’s boundaries
• It requires a change in the super-circle
• It concerns collaboration between circles

Examples

Tension 1: Resource Conflict

The “Product Development” sub-circle notices it’s chronically understaffed while the neighboring “Marketing” circle appears oversized.

→ The Rep Link brings this tension to the super-circle.

Tension 2: Missing Domain

The “Sales” sub-circle needs access to the CRM system, currently controlled by “IT.”

→ The Rep Link proposes a domain adjustment in the super-circle.

Tension 3: Strategic Misalignment

The “Customer Support” sub-circle notices that the super-circle’s priority “speed” comes at the expense of customer satisfaction.

→ The Rep Link carries this feedback to the super-circle.

The Process

1. Identify tension in sub-circle

   • In tactical meetings or governance, the tension surfaces
   • The sub-circle recognizes it cannot resolve it itself

2. Hand tension to Rep Link

   • The circle member with the tension asks the Rep Link to carry it upward
   • The Rep Link understands the tension

3. Rep Link brings tension

   • In the next governance meeting of the super-circle
   • As a regular agenda item
   • With a concrete proposal (if possible)

4. Super-circle processes

   • Normal governance process
   • The Rep Link is the proposer

Research Insight: Effective Rep Links distinguish between tensions that legitimately belong upward and those the sub-circle should resolve itself. This distinction is a competence that must develop. [2]

When the Rep Link Should Speak

Definitely Intervene With:

Blockades from outside

When the super-circle or other circles prevent the sub-circle from fulfilling its purpose.

Resource problems

When the sub-circle is permanently under- or mis-staffed.

Strategic inconsistency

When the super-circle’s strategy isn’t implementable in the sub-circle.

Structural gaps

When it’s unclear who is responsible for something – and the answer doesn’t lie in the sub-circle.

Don’t Intervene With:

Internal conflicts

When two roles in the sub-circle have a conflict, that’s an internal governance matter.

Normal prioritization questions

When someone doesn’t know what’s more important, that’s a Lead Link question.

Personal complaints

The Rep Link is not a complaint channel for individual dissatisfaction.

Typical Rep Link Mistakes

Mistake 1: Passive Rep Link

Symptom: The Rep Link participates in super-circle meetings but never brings anything.

Consequence: Tensions in the sub-circle remain unresolved. The double-link only works in one direction.

Solution: Actively collect tensions in the sub-circle. Before every super-circle meeting, ask: “Does anyone have tensions for the super-circle?”

Mistake 2: Over-Active Rep Link

Symptom: The Rep Link brings every small complaint to the super-circle.

Consequence: Super-circle meetings become overloaded. The Rep Link loses credibility.

Solution: Learn to filter. Not every tension belongs upward. Many can be resolved internally.

Mistake 3: Rep Link as Lead Link’s Mouthpiece

Symptom: The Rep Link represents the Lead Link’s position instead of the circle’s.

Consequence: The double-link degenerates to a single-link. The circle’s perspective is lost.

Solution: Maintain independence. The Rep Link represents the circle, not the Lead Link.

Mistake 4: Lack of Communication Back

Symptom: The Rep Link goes to super-circle meetings but never reports back.

Consequence: The sub-circle doesn’t know what’s happening at the higher level.

Solution: After every super-circle meeting, brief report in the sub-circle: “This was relevant for us…”

The Relationship to the Lead Link

Lead Link and Rep Link together form the double-link. Their relationship is complementary, not competitive.

Complementary Functions

Lead Link	Rep Link
Carries purpose downward	Carries tensions upward
Assigned by super-circle	Elected by sub-circle
Represents super-circle interests	Represents sub-circle interests
Sets priorities	Gives feedback on priorities

Potential Tension

It can happen that Lead Link and Rep Link have different positions. This is normal and even intended – they represent different perspectives.

Example:

• Lead Link: “The super-circle needs more output from us.”
• Rep Link: “Our circle is already at capacity.”

This tension is worked out in the super-circle, not in the sub-circle.

No Directive Authority

The Lead Link has no authority over the Rep Link. The Rep Link fulfills their role independently.

Rep Link at SI Labs

The Rep Link is an essential part of our Holacracy practice. Our experiences:

What We’ve Learned

Take the election seriously. We elect Rep Links carefully. The best person is often not the loudest, but the one who can listen well and communicate in a structured way.

Regular check-in. Before super-circle meetings, our Rep Link actively asks: “Does anyone have tensions for the super-circle?”

Feedback culture. After super-circle meetings, the Rep Link briefly reports: “This was discussed, this affects us.”

Typical Challenges

• New Rep Links are often too reserved initially
• The balance between “too much” and “too little” contribution takes practice
• Maintaining independence from the Lead Link sometimes requires courage

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on the Holacracy Constitution and over ten years of practical experience with the Rep Link role at SI Labs, supplemented by research on communication and feedback in self-organized systems.

Source selection:

• Holacracy Constitution and official materials
• Studies on bidirectional communication in organizations
• Practitioner experiences from the Holacracy network

Limitations: Our experience comes from a medium-sized organization. In very large organizations with many levels, the Rep Link dynamic may be different.

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH has practiced Holacracy for over ten years. We have tested the Rep Link role in various circle configurations.

---

Sources

[1] Robertson, Brian J. “Holacracy.” In The Management Shift, edited by Vlatka Hlupic, 145-168. Chichester: Wiley, 2012. DOI: 10.1002/9781119197683.ch9 [Book Chapter | N/A | Citations: N/A | Quality: 60/100]

[2] 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]

[3] De Vincenzi, Marco, et al. “Reflections on organization, emergence, and control in sociotechnical systems.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6965 (2014). DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1412.6965 [Concept Paper | N/A | Citations: 8 | Quality: 54/100]