Strategy Meetings in Holacracy: Beyond Tactical

Strategy is not Governance. And not Tactical. Holacracy defines structural work (Governance) and operational coordination (Tactical) – but where does strategic direction fit?

We hear this question often. The answer: Strategy has a place in Holacracy, but it looks different than in traditional organizations.

What Strategy Means in Holacracy

Strategy is Not Structure

In Holacracy, organizational structure (roles, Circles, domains, policies) is separate from strategy:

• Governance defines: Who can do what?
• Strategy answers: Where do we want to go?

Both are important. Both have different formats.

Strategy in the Constitution

The Holacracy constitution mentions strategy in the context of the Lead Link:

The Lead Link can define strategies for the Circle – heuristics that help roles with prioritization decisions.

What this means:

• Strategy is not detailed planning
• Strategy is a heuristic (rule of thumb)
• Strategy helps with “this or that?” decisions

Example of a Holacracy strategy: “Depth over breadth” – When adding new features, we prioritize deepening existing functionality over adding new features.

When Strategy Meetings Make Sense

New Direction Needed

When context fundamentally changes:

• Market shifts
• New competition
• Technological disruption
• Growth or contraction

Unclear Priorities

When the team is unsure what to focus on:

• “Everything is important”
• Conflicts over resource allocation
• Lack of direction

Regular Reflection

Quarterly or semi-annually:

• Where are we?
• Where do we want to go?
• What has changed?

After Major Milestones

After completing important phases:

• Product launch
• Funding round
• Major reorganization

Strategy Meetings vs. Holacracy Meetings

Aspect	Tactical	Governance	Strategy Meeting
Focus	Coordinate work	Change structure	Set direction
Frequency	Weekly	1-4x monthly	Quarterly/semi-annually
Duration	30-60 min	60-120 min	Half day to 2 days
Output	Projects, actions	Roles, policies	Strategies, priorities
In constitution?	Yes	Yes	No (supplementary)

Formats for Strategy Work

Format 1: The Strategy Offsite

When: 1-2x yearly Duration: 1-2 days Participants: Anchor Circle or extended leadership

Agenda elements:

1. Context check: Where are we? What has changed?
2. Vision reflection: Does our direction still hold?
3. Strategy development: What heuristics do we need?
4. Priorities: What’s most important?
5. Next steps: How do we communicate this?

Format 2: The Quarterly Review

When: Every 3 months Duration: 2-4 hours Participants: Circle members

Agenda elements:

1. Metrics review: What do the numbers show?
2. Strategy check: Are we on track?
3. Adjustments: What needs to change?
4. Next quarter: Focus areas

Format 3: The Problem-Solving Session

When: For specific strategic challenges Duration: 2-3 hours Participants: Relevant roles

Agenda elements:

1. Define problem
2. Generate options
3. Evaluate
4. Decide
5. Next steps

Connecting Strategy and Governance

Strategic decisions often lead to structural changes:

From Strategy to Governance

Strategy: “We focus on enterprise customers.”

Governance implications:

• New role: Enterprise Sales
• New accountability: Evaluate enterprise needs
• New policy: Enterprise deals over €50k need Lead Link approval

The Flow

1. Strategy meeting: Direction is defined
2. Communication: Team is informed
3. Tensions emerge: “How does my role implement this?”
4. Governance: Structural adjustments are made
5. Tactical: Operational implementation coordinated

Strategy at SI Labs

Our approach:

Annual Offsite

Once a year, 1.5 days:

• Day 1: Retrospective and context
• Day 2: Looking ahead and priorities
• Remote participants via video

Quarterly Reflection

90 minutes, after quarter close:

• Analyze metrics
• Check strategy
• Focus areas for next quarter

What We’ve Learned

1. Strategy is not Governance Strategic discussions don’t fit in the Governance agenda. Separate format.

2. Strategy needs time 30 minutes isn’t enough. Half a day minimum for real strategy work.

3. Communication is crucial Strategies that aren’t communicated don’t exist. Make them explicit.

4. Regularity creates clarity Quarterly check-ins prevent strategic drift.

Research Insight: Empirical research at Mercedes-Benz.io shows that Holacracy decentralizes decision-making authority and accountability, but strategic processes may take longer as a result. Velinov et al. (2021) found: “Decision-making authority and accountability is decentralized toward employees who face operational realities. This fosters commitment but might prolong the decision process.” This underscores why dedicated strategy meetings matter – they create space for the deep strategic work that gets lost in daily operations. [3]

Research Insight: The largest empirical study on Holacracy transformations (Pfister et al., 2021, n=43 interviews) identifies four different paths into self-organization. The researchers emphasize: Strategic clarity before transformation is crucial – teams need a shared understanding of direction before they can self-organize effectively. [4]

Who Does Strategy in Holacracy?

The Lead Link’s Role

The Lead Link has the accountability for Circle strategy:

• Defines strategies for the Circle
• Communicates strategic priorities
• Adjusts strategies when needed

But: Not Alone

Strategy work benefits from input:

• Circle members bring perspectives
• Roles with market/customer contact inform
• Cross-Circle coordination for overall strategy

The Anchor Circle Strategy

The overarching company strategy sits with the Anchor Circle:

• Defined by the Anchor Circle Lead Link
• Influences Sub-Circle strategies
• Developed in strategy meetings

Conclusion: Strategy Has Its Place

Holacracy doesn’t have a built-in strategy meeting – and that’s okay. Standard meetings cover operational and structural work. Strategic work needs its own formats.

The key:

• Strategy ≠ Governance ≠ Tactical
• Dedicated time and format for strategy
• Results flow into Governance and Tactical

Holacracy doesn’t exclude strategy. It just makes explicit: Strategy is not the same as structure or operations.

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on Holacracy literature, empirical field research on self-organizing companies, and experience with strategy formats at SI Labs.

Source selection:

• Holacracy constitution and interpretation
• Empirical case studies (Mercedes-Benz.io, Swiss companies)
• Practice reports on strategy in self-organized contexts

Limitations:

• Little research on strategy specifically in Holacracy
• Context-dependence

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH combines Holacracy meetings with own strategy formats.

---

Sources

[1] 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]

[2] HolacracyOne. “Holacracy Constitution v5.0.” https://www.holacracy.org/constitution [Primary Source | Constitution | Quality: 60/100]

[3] Velinov, Emil, Iveta Malachovská, and Petr Mašín. “How Mercedes-Benz Addresses Digital Transformation Using Holacracy.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 34, no. 5 (2021): 1078-1091. DOI: 10.1108/jocm-12-2020-0395 [Case Study | Qualitative Interviews | Citations: 23 | Quality: 75/100]

[4] 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]