Tactical Meetings in Holacracy: The Complete Process Guide

Organizing the daily chaos of operational work – that’s the central task of the Tactical Meeting in Holacracy. While Governance Meetings change the structure, the Tactical Meeting uses existing structure to coordinate work. In self-organized teams, this meeting is the heartbeat of operational collaboration.

At SI Labs, we’ve been running weekly Tactical Meetings for over ten years. What we’ve learned: A well-run Tactical Meeting takes 30-45 minutes and replaces dozens of ad-hoc interruptions. A poorly run Tactical becomes an endless discussion without results.

This guide gives you everything you need for productive Tactical Meetings: the complete process flow, roles and responsibilities, the triage process, and the most common mistakes with their solutions.

What is a Tactical Meeting?

The Tactical Meeting is one of the two core meeting formats in Holacracy (the other is the Governance Meeting). Its sole purpose: synchronizing the operational work of the Circle.

Definition and Boundaries

A Tactical Meeting:

• Coordinates ongoing work within existing structures
• Processes tensions into concrete outputs (projects, actions)
• Uses roles, domains, and accountabilities as defined

A Tactical Meeting is NOT:

• A discussion forum for opinions
• A structure development session (that’s Governance)
• A planning session for the future
• A social gathering

Research Insight: Studies on meeting effectiveness show that teams with a structured, role-based meeting format spend 23% less time in meetings than teams without clear processes. The key is separating operational coordination from structural development. [1]

The Five Outputs of a Tactical Meeting

Every Tactical Meeting can produce exactly five types of outputs:

1. Sharing information – Making relevant data visible to others
2. Initiating projects – New ongoing work with an end goal
3. Defining next actions – Concrete next steps
4. Making requests – Requests to other roles
5. Noting governance items – What can’t be resolved here

Everything else doesn’t belong in the Tactical Meeting.

The Complete Tactical Meeting Flow

A Tactical Meeting follows a strictly defined flow. Each phase has a clear purpose and clear rules.

Phase 1: Check-in Round (2-5 minutes)

Purpose: Let everyone arrive mentally in the room.

Flow:

• The Facilitator opens and leads the round
• Each person briefly shares what’s present for them
• No comments, no discussion, no reactions
• Order at the Facilitator’s discretion

What’s shared:

• Current emotional/mental state
• Distractions that should be acknowledged
• Maximum 1-2 sentences

What’s NOT shared:

• Work reports
• Project updates
• Topics for later

Practice Tip: The check-in is not optional. It signals: “We see each other as people, not just roles.” Teams that skip the check-in often have less psychological safety in meetings.

Phase 2: Checklist Review (2-5 minutes)

Purpose: Check regular tasks for completion.

Flow:

• The Secretary reads each checklist item
• The responsible role answers with “Check” (done) or “No Check” (not done)
• No discussion, no explanations
• The Secretary notes the status

What belongs on the checklist:

• Recurring tasks (weekly, monthly)
• Standard processes performed regularly
• Activities that need visibility

Examples:

• “Weekly backup completed” – Check
• “Customer feedback collected this week” – No Check
• “Sprint burndown updated” – Check

Phase 3: Metrics Review (2-5 minutes)

Purpose: Make quantitative data transparent.

Flow:

• The Secretary reads each metric
• The responsible role shares the current value
• No interpretation, no discussion
• For notable values: note tension for triage

What’s measured:

• Circle Key Performance Indicators
• Trend-relevant numbers
• Early indicators for problems

Examples:

• “Support tickets open: 47 (↑ from 32)”
• “Conversion rate: 3.2%”
• “Pipeline value: €145k”

Phase 4: Project Updates (3-10 minutes)

Purpose: Share status of all ongoing projects.

Flow:

• The Secretary reads each project
• The responsible role gives an update in one word or sentence
• Standard updates: “No change”, “Progress”, “Blocked”, “Complete”
• For questions or problems: note tension for triage

What a project is:

• Ongoing work with a concrete end goal
• Larger than a single action
• Has an outcome described in past tense

Examples:

• “Website relaunch completed” – Progress
• “Q2 strategy documented” – No change
• “New employee onboarded” – Complete

Research Insight: Studies show that project reports in meetings consume an average of 40% of time but deliver only 15% of meeting value. The short status check in the Tactical Meeting reduces this phase to under 10% of time with equal transparency. [2]

Phase 5: Triage – The Heart (15-30 minutes)

Purpose: Process tensions and convert them to outputs.

This is the most important phase of the Tactical Meeting. This is where the actual coordination work happens.

The Triage Process in Detail

Step 1: Build the Agenda

• The Facilitator asks: “What tensions do you have?”
• Each person names one or two words as placeholders
• The Secretary notes all topics
• No prioritization, no discussion

Step 2: Process Items (one at a time)

For each item, the Facilitator goes through these steps:

a) “What do you need?”

• The agenda owner explains their tension
• Brief, focused, concrete
• Maximum speaking time: 2 minutes

b) Clarifying Questions

• Others can ask understanding questions
• Questions only, no statements
• “Have you already tried X?” is NOT a clarifying question

c) Identify Resolution Path

• The Facilitator helps find the right output:
  • Need information? → Address to the responsible role
  • Need action from others? → Formulate request
  • Need to clarify own work? → Define next action or project
  • Structural problem? → Note tension for Governance

d) Capture Next Step

• The Secretary documents the result
• Clear formulation: Who does what next?
• Check: “Is your tension processed?”

Step 3: Next Item

• The Facilitator moves to the next agenda point
• Same procedure for all items

The Art of Tension

In Holacracy, a “tension” is the gap between current reality and what could be. It’s not a negative term, but a neutral indicator of improvement potential.

Good tension formulations:

• “I need information X to do Y”
• “I lack clarity about who’s responsible for Z”
• “Project A is blocked because B isn’t happening”
• “I see an opportunity we’re missing”

Problematic tension formulations:

• “I think we should discuss X more” (no concrete need)
• “Person Y isn’t doing their work properly” (personal attack)
• “We should think about Z in general” (too vague)

Phase 6: Check-out Round (1-2 minutes)

Purpose: Close the meeting consciously.

Flow:

• The Facilitator asks for closing reflections
• Each person can optionally share something
• No discussion, no responses
• Facilitator closes the meeting

What’s shared:

• Brief reflection on the meeting
• What stuck with you
• Or simply “I’m done”

The Meeting Roles

Two roles are essential for every Tactical Meeting: the Facilitator and the Secretary.

The Facilitator

Core responsibility: Protect the process.

In the Tactical Meeting:

• Guides through all phases
• Interrupts discussions
• Keeps focus on outputs
• Protects the agenda owner
• Ends topics when tension is processed

What the Facilitator does NOT do:

• Make decisions
• Contribute content (except as participant)
• Suggest solutions
• Prioritize topics

Practice Tip: A good Facilitator is “process-obsessed and content-agnostic.” They care about HOW the meeting runs, not WHAT is discussed.

The Secretary

Core responsibility: Capture outputs.

In the Tactical Meeting:

• Leads through checklists and metrics
• Builds the triage agenda
• Documents all outputs
• Updates projects and actions

What the Secretary does NOT do:

• Keep minutes in the traditional sense
• Summarize discussions
• Send meeting notes (the outputs are the result)

Common Mistakes and Their Solutions

Mistake 1: Discussions Instead of Outputs

Problem: The triage item leads to a fundamental discussion.

Symptoms:

• Multiple people talking at once
• Opinions being exchanged
• No concrete output emerges
• Time runs out

Solution: The Facilitator interrupts: “This is a discussion. What do you specifically need? Information, action, or decision?”

Example:

• Agenda Owner: “We should talk about our pricing strategy.”
• Facilitator: “What’s your concrete tension?”
• Agenda Owner: “I don’t know how to respond to price inquiries.”
• Facilitator: “Who has the accountabilities for pricing?”
• Marketing: “That’s me.”
• Facilitator: “Can you share information on that?”
• Marketing: “Yes, our guideline is X. I’ll send you the document after the meeting.”
• Facilitator: “Is your tension processed?”
• Agenda Owner: “Yes.”

Duration: 2 minutes instead of 20 minutes of discussion.

Mistake 2: Governance in Tactical

Problem: Structural topics are discussed in Tactical.

Symptoms:

• “We should have a new role for that”
• “The responsibility should be with X”
• “Our domain boundaries are unclear”

Solution: The Facilitator recognizes the topic and redirects: “That sounds like a structural change. Do you want to note a tension for the next Governance Meeting?”

Why this matters:

• Structural changes need the IDM process
• Tactical lacks the right framework for that
• The change wouldn’t “stick” without the formal process

Mistake 3: Project Updates Become Status Meetings

Problem: The project phase takes 30 minutes instead of 5.

Symptoms:

• Detailed reports on every project
• Questions about projects lead to discussions
• Justifications for “no change”

Solution:

• Enforce strict one-sentence updates
• Treat questions about projects as triage items
• “No change” is a legitimate update

Example Facilitator intervention: “Thanks for the details, but we only need the status. If you need input, bring it as a triage item.”

Mistake 4: Skipping Phases

Problem: Teams go directly to triage without check-in, checklists, or metrics.

Symptoms:

• Meeting starts hectic
• Important information is missing
• Tensions are based on incomplete picture

Solution: Each phase has a purpose:

• Check-in: Focus and presence
• Checklists: Regular tasks visible
• Metrics: Data-based decisions
• Projects: Overview of ongoing work

These phases often shorten triage because many questions are already answered.

Mistake 5: No Clear Outputs

Problem: After triage, nobody knows what happens next.

Symptoms:

• “We’ll look into that”
• “Someone should do that”
• “We’ll continue discussing this next time”

Solution: Every triage item MUST end with one of the five outputs:

1. Information shared
2. Project added
3. Next action defined
4. Request made
5. Governance tension noted

The Facilitator doesn’t accept any topic as “processed” until a concrete output is captured.

Best Practices from Ten Years of Practice

Optimal Meeting Frequency

Standard: Once weekly, same day, same time.

Why weekly?

• Enough distance for progress
• Close enough for quick response
• Rhythm gets established

When more frequent?

• High-intensity project phases
• New teams building up
• Crises or upheavals

When less frequent?

• Very stable, well-practiced teams
• Few interdependencies
• Supplemented by daily stand-ups

Research Insight: Studies show that weekly synchronous coordination is optimal for teams with medium to high interdependence. Teams with daily meetings often report “meeting fatigue,” while bi-weekly meetings lead to information losses. [3]

Optimal Meeting Duration

Standard: 30-60 minutes.

Factors:

• Number of participants (5-8 people ideal)
• Number of ongoing projects
• Complexity of work

Rule of thumb:

• Under 5 participants: 30 minutes is enough
• 5-8 participants: 45-60 minutes
• Over 8 participants: Split meeting or split Circles

Asynchronous Preparation

Before the meeting:

• Projects and actions are current
• Metrics are captured
• Checklists are prepared
• Everyone has noted their tensions

Time savings:

• Check-in: 2 instead of 5 minutes
• Checklists: 1 instead of 3 minutes
• Metrics: 1 instead of 3 minutes
• Projects: 3 instead of 10 minutes
• Triage: More focused because prepared

Tools for this:

• GlassFrog, Holaspirit or similar Holacracy software
• Shared project board (Asana, Notion, etc.)
• Preparation reminder 24h before meeting

Remote Tactical Meetings

Remote meetings have their own dynamics. For Tacticals:

Video on:

• Check-in and check-out need visual connection
• Triage benefits from body language

Strict moderation:

• No cross-talk (one speaks)
• Hand-raise function for comments
• Timer for each triage item visible

Live documentation:

• Shared document visible to all
• Capture outputs immediately
• No “I’ll send that later” promises

Technology:

• Stable connection is mandatory
• Backup plan for outages
• No background noise

Tactical Meetings at SI Labs

Our experiences from over 500 Tactical Meetings:

What We’ve Learned

1. The Facilitator makes 80% of meeting success. A weak Facilitator leads to long, unproductive meetings. We rotate the role and give active feedback.

2. Checklists and metrics are gold. Initially, we skipped them. Today we know: They uncover problems before they escalate.

3. Build the agenda at the beginning. We collect all topics first before starting processing. This prevents topics from being “forgotten.”

4. Tensions belong to roles, not people. “My role has a tension” is more productive than “I have a problem.”

5. Meetings end on time. When time runs out, we stop. Unprocessed topics go to the next meeting. This disciplines focus.

Our Metrics for Good Tacticals

• Average duration: 35-40 minutes
• Topics per meeting: 8-12
• Time per triage item: 2-4 minutes
• Outputs per item: 1-2

Typical Week

Monday: Tactical Meeting of the whole company (Anchor Circle) Wednesday: Tactical Meetings of Sub-Circles Friday: Governance Meeting (every other week)

The Tactical Meeting and Other Meeting Formats

Tactical vs. Governance

Aspect	Tactical	Governance
Focus	Coordinate work	Change structure
Output	Projects, actions	Roles, policies
Process	Triage	IDM
Frequency	Weekly	1-4x monthly

Tactical vs. Stand-up

Aspect	Tactical	Stand-up
Duration	30-60 min	15 min max
Focus	Synchronization	Status
Output	Concrete outputs	Awareness
Frequency	Weekly	Daily

A stand-up doesn’t replace a Tactical Meeting. It can supplement it.

Tactical vs. Retrospective

Aspect	Tactical	Retrospective
Focus	What do we do?	How do we work?
Time reference	Now and next week	Last period
Output	Projects, actions	Improvements

Conclusion: Mastering the Tactical Meeting

The Tactical Meeting is the workhorse of Holacracy practice. It’s not glamorous, not revolutionary – but indispensable.

The essence:

• Strictly structured, consistently executed
• Outputs, not discussions
• Roles, not people
• Short and focused

The difference between good and bad teams: Not whether they have problems – but how quickly they turn them into outputs.

With a well-run Tactical Meeting, coordination becomes reflex instead of effort. The 30-45 minutes per week save dozens of hours of email ping-pong, hallway conversations, and misunderstandings.

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on analysis of research literature on meeting effectiveness, self-organization, and team coordination, combined with over ten years of practical experience at SI Labs.

Source selection:

• Peer-reviewed studies on meeting structures
• Practitioner literature on Holacracy implementation
• Comparative analyses of different meeting formats
• Longitudinal observations from our own practice

Limitations:

• Holacracy-specific research is still limited
• Many insights come from general meeting research
• Our practical experiences are anecdotal, not systematically collected

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH has practiced Holacracy for over ten years. We run weekly Tactical Meetings and have developed the described practices from our own experience. We are convinced that well-structured meetings make teams more productive.

---

Sources

[1] Velinov, Emil, et al. “Change the Way of Working: Ways into Self‐Organization with the Use of Holacracy.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 34, no. 5 (2021): 1063-1078. DOI: 10.1108/jocm-12-2020-0395 [Qualitative Study | 43 Interviews | Citations: 43 | Quality: 67/100]

[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 Practitioner Article | Multiple Case Studies | Citations: 312 | Quality: 72/100]

[3] 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]

[4] 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]