Disclaimer: I have no idea what holacracy is or how it works, this is the first time I heard the term.
But this:
> market conditions shift too quickly to allow management to have the sole responsibility for making decisions
rubs me the wrong way.
Making decisions and bearing the responsibility and accepting the consequences of past decisions, is the sole task -- indeed the sole purpose of management. If they cease making decisions then what good are they?
Now, if "holacracy" means that there is no management anymore, it may be fine; however
- the tone and the very existence of the memo seem to tell otherwise; there is something extremely funny about "mandatory self-organization"
- salaried positions are (to me) a little like a deal with the devil: you give up freedom, in exchange for peace of mind and not having to make too many decisions. This holacracy thing sounds like a trick by the devil in order to not hold his end of the bargain.
I don't believe Holacracy is striving for anything like that. I think it's yet another faddish management theory with buzzwords to keep people - who would otherwise contemplate the uselessness of their existence - busy at large bureaucratic companies, much like the tides of reorganization and the rigors of standards compliance and change management do.
A person or group playing the role of management would likely still exist. The point is that it arises organically through natural leadership within the organically self-assembling structure. In fact accepting the consequences is much more real to this version of management in that the effects of poor decisions are immediate. In a self-organizing structure, their power can be swiftly removed by the masses. Meanwhile poor management in more rigid structure can survive much longer and is frequently untouchable.
>In a self-organizing structure, their power can be swiftly removed by the masses. Meanwhile poor management in more rigid structure can survive much longer and is frequently untouchable.
Meanwhile in a self-organizing structure you can get the shaft, because a good decision did not turn out too well.
I also don't see how this system solves the "politics" problem. I actually think it makes it even worse. People will premeditate and ploy much more, if a consensus is the only thing standing between them and power. As e result many bad decisions will be made in the name of compromise and favors.
But this:
> market conditions shift too quickly to allow management to have the sole responsibility for making decisions
rubs me the wrong way.
Making decisions and bearing the responsibility and accepting the consequences of past decisions, is the sole task -- indeed the sole purpose of management. If they cease making decisions then what good are they?
Now, if "holacracy" means that there is no management anymore, it may be fine; however
- the tone and the very existence of the memo seem to tell otherwise; there is something extremely funny about "mandatory self-organization"
- salaried positions are (to me) a little like a deal with the devil: you give up freedom, in exchange for peace of mind and not having to make too many decisions. This holacracy thing sounds like a trick by the devil in order to not hold his end of the bargain.