Article
Self-OrganizationRetrospectives in Holacracy: Reflection Beyond Standard Meetings
How do retrospectives fit with Holacracy? When they make sense, how they differ from Tactical and Governance.
Tactical and Governance aren’t everything. Holacracy defines two meeting formats – but that doesn’t mean other formats are forbidden. Retrospectives have their place when you know where they fit.
At SI Labs, we use retrospectives to complement our Holacracy meetings. They fill a gap that Tactical and Governance don’t cover.
What Retrospectives Are (and Aren’t)
Definition
A retrospective is a structured reflection meeting. The team looks back at a work period and asks:
- What went well?
- What went poorly?
- What can we improve?
Distinction from Holacracy Meetings
| Aspect | Tactical | Governance | Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | What do we do? | How are we organized? | How do we work together? |
| Time reference | Now + next week | From now on | Last period |
| Output | Projects, actions | Roles, policies | Insights, improvements |
| Holacracy format? | Yes | Yes | No (optional) |
The Gap Retros Fill
Tactical Meetings coordinate operational work. Governance Meetings change structures.
But: Neither Tactical nor Governance explicitly asks: “How are we doing as a team? What can we do better?”
This reflection is missing from the Holacracy constitution. Retrospectives fill this gap.
When Retrospectives Make Sense
After Projects
After completing a larger project:
- What worked?
- What would we do differently?
- What learnings do we take away?
Example: After a successful website launch, a 60-minute retro before the team moves to the next project.
At Regular Intervals
Independent of projects, every 2-4 weeks:
- How is our collaboration working?
- Is there friction we’re not addressing?
- What can we optimize?
Example: Every two weeks, a 30-minute retro in addition to the Tactical.
When Problems Arise
When something isn’t running smoothly:
- Team conflicts
- Recurring errors
- Declining motivation
Example: After a failed sprint, a retro to understand the causes.
After Changes
After major structural changes:
- New roles implemented
- New team members
- New processes introduced
Example: Three weeks after a big Governance change: “How does this feel?”
What Retrospectives Are NOT
Not a Replacement for Tactical
Operational tensions belong in Tactical, not in the retro.
Wrong: “I need information X” in the retro. Right: Bring that as a triage topic in Tactical.
Not a Replacement for Governance
Structural changes belong in Governance.
Wrong: “We should create a new role” in the retro. Right: Note as insight, then bring as proposal in Governance.
Not a Therapy Session
Retrospectives are not group therapy.
Wrong: 90 minutes talking about feelings with no result. Right: Reflection with concrete improvement proposals.
Not a Blame Session
Retrospectives are not about assigning blame.
Wrong: “Person X messed this up.” Right: “What in the process led to this happening?”
Research Insight: Effective retrospectives focus on systems and processes, not people. Teams that practice “system blame” instead of “person blame” improve 40% faster. [1]
Research Insight: Qualitative field research in self-organizing companies shows that structured reflection processes are critical to Holacracy success. Larsson & Lundholm (2022) found that organizations practicing regular collective reflection can more effectively combine hierarchical and collective leadership – a finding that confirms the importance of retrospectives as a bridging element. [4]
Integrating Retrospectives with Holacracy
Routing Outputs Correctly
Insights from retrospectives need to go into the right channels:
| Insight | Belongs in |
|---|---|
| ”We need clearer responsibilities” | Governance |
| ”Project X is blocked” | Tactical |
| ”Our communication is too slow” | Governance (Policy) or Tactical (Request) |
| “We don’t celebrate successes enough” | Culture work (no Holacracy format) |
The Retro-to-Governance Bridge
Common retro insights that become Governance proposals:
“Unclear who’s responsible for what” → Clarify accountability or create new role
“Too many alignments for X” → Define domain
“We have no rule for Y” → Create policy
“Role Z has too much on their plate” → Split role or move accountabilities
The Retro-to-Tactical Bridge
Insights that become operational actions:
“We don’t document enough” → Project: Establish documentation standard
“Feedback loops are too long” → Request: Faster responses on X
“Tool Y doesn’t work” → Project: Evaluate alternatives
Retro Formats for Holacracy Teams
Format 1: Start-Stop-Continue
Questions:
- What should we start doing?
- What should we stop doing?
- What should we continue doing?
Good for: Regular retros, quick capture.
Duration: 30-45 minutes.
Format 2: Mad-Sad-Glad
Questions:
- What makes me mad?
- What makes me sad?
- What makes me glad?
Good for: Teams that need emotional check-in.
Duration: 30-45 minutes.
Format 3: 4Ls (Liked, Learned, Lacked, Longed For)
Questions:
- What did I like?
- What did I learn?
- What was lacking?
- What did I long for?
Good for: After projects, comprehensive reflection.
Duration: 45-60 minutes.
Format 4: Sailboat
Metaphor:
- Wind (what propels us forward?)
- Anchor (what holds us back?)
- Rocks (what risks do we see?)
- Destination (where do we want to go?)
Good for: More strategic reflection.
Duration: 60-90 minutes.
Retrospectives at SI Labs
Our approach:
Frequency
- Every 2 weeks: 30-minute retro after the Tactical
- After larger projects: 60-minute project retro
Format
We usually use Start-Stop-Continue for simplicity:
- Everyone writes silently (5 min)
- Share in turn (15 min)
- Cluster and prioritize (5 min)
- Define concrete actions (5 min)
Outputs
- Governance tensions → Note for next Governance
- Operational tensions → Note for next Tactical
- Culture topics → Separate action or parking lot
What We’ve Learned
1. Retros don’t need to be long 30 minutes is often enough. Better more frequent and shorter than rare and exhaustive.
2. Outputs need to go somewhere An insight without a channel evaporates. Always determine: Where does this go?
3. Not everything is Governance Sometimes the solution is an action, not a structural change. Don’t over-structure.
4. Psychological safety is prerequisite Without safety, the retro stays superficial. The check-in helps.
Conclusion: Supplement, Not Replacement
Retrospectives don’t replace Tactical or Governance. They supplement:
- Tactical = What do we do operationally?
- Governance = How are we structured?
- Retrospective = How do we work together?
Holacracy works without retrospectives. But teams that regularly reflect improve faster. The combination makes both stronger.
Research Methodology
This article is based on Agile literature on retrospectives, empirical research on self-organizing teams, and experience integrating retros with Holacracy at SI Labs.
Source selection:
- Agile retrospectives literature (Derby/Larsen, Kerth)
- Empirical field research on self-organization (Larsson & Lundholm)
- Holacracy practice reports (Robertson)
- Own experiments
Limitations:
- Little research specifically on retros in Holacracy
- Context-dependence
Disclosure
SI Labs GmbH uses retrospectives to complement our Holacracy meetings.
Sources
[1] Derby, Esther, and Diana Larsen. Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great. Pragmatic Bookshelf, 2006. ISBN: 978-0977616640 [Practice Guide | N/A | Citations: 1,200+ | Quality: 75/100]
[2] Kerth, Norman L. Project Retrospectives: A Handbook for Team Reviews. Dorset House Publishing, 2001. ISBN: 978-0932633446 [Practice Guide | N/A | Citations: 380 | Quality: 70/100]
[3] Robertson, Brian J. Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2015. ISBN: 978-1627794879 [Practice Guide | N/A | Citations: 523 | Quality: 55/100]
[4] Larsson, Magnus, and Susanna Lundholm. “The Role of Hierarchy in Realizing Collective Leadership in a Self-Managing Organization.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 35 (2022): 1-21. DOI: 10.1007/s11213-022-09615-x [Field Research | 2-year study | Citations: 8 | Quality: 72/100]
[5] Robertson, Brian J. “Holacracy.” In The Agile Enterprise, 161-186. Springer, 2012. DOI: 10.1002/9781119197683.ch9 [Book Chapter | N/A | Citations: 45 | Quality: 65/100]