[APPLAUSE]
BRIAN ROBERTSON:
All right, welcome.
So first, just a little
bit of background-- I'm
an entrepreneur.
My background's in
software development.
I started coding
very, very young
when I found a Commodore 64
and a bunch of other older
machines, which by the
way, I've seen many of them
in your lobby.
And I just [INAUDIBLE] today
and go hang out in there now.
So from my early background
in software developments,
I did that for a while.
Went through the whole
management ranks--
climbed the management ladder.
And for me, it
was a sense of I'm
noticing the human issues
getting in the way of what
I was doing in the
technology world
almost as much as
any of the technology
issues we're facing--
the process, the people,
the way we work
together, and all that.
So I got really
fascinated by that.
And I worked in an aerospace
company at the time.
And it won an award for being
the best mid-size company
to work for in America, right?
A really sizable award.
And I realized I wasn't
really satisfied there.
Despite that,
don't get me wrong.
The benefits were great.
The perks were incredible.
I realized what I really
wanted was an environment where
I could really use my talents
fully where anything I sensed
that could be better I
could do something with it
and act on it.
And all of the free lunches and
perks and even a really cool,
fun culture wasn't
enough for me.
I just wanted to
use my creativity.
And there was something
getting in the way.
And after a while, I realized
what was getting in the way
was something around the
way we work together--
the structure, the
politics, the bureaucracy.
I had ideas.
And I couldn't get them
socialized enough in the system
to change anything.
And I'd go to meetings and we
wouldn't even get to my topics
because they were
painful and long and all
of these other things
that get in the way of us
using our gifts.
So I eventually dropped
out of that whole system
and started my own company.
And my goal with
that company was
I want to find a better way.
There's got to be a
better way to organize.
And so my company
became a laboratory.
And we experimented
over many years
as we grew that business
just looking for how can we
work together more effectively.
And I had a bunch of
ideas, most of which
proved to be terrible ideas.
And I won't share them with you.
But over the years
of experimenting,
some stuff actually worked.
So eventually we would
name it Holacracy.
But where this came from was
not from a bunch of ideas,
not from a bunch of
theory, definitely
not from a management
consultant.
It was from a bunch
of entrepreneurs
trying to build a
business and figuring out
what works through
trial and error
and a lot of experimentation.
So with that said,
let me introduce you
to the category of how to
think about this thing.
I think about Holacracy as
a new social technology.
And being a software
guy by background,
I think a lot about
technology and usually
when people talk
about technology,
they're talking about the
physical technologies hardware.
Gadgets, devices or even
software internet-- whatever.
But there's this other
class of technology--
social technologies-- that
actually in a lot of ways
have been fundamental
in our whole progress
as a human species,
at least as much
as our actual physical
technologies--
technologies like rule
of law and democracy
and all of the
other ways that we
humans group together, organize,
and find ways to interconnect.
Right, those are
social technologies.
And yet, when we look at the
social technology in place
in most companies, it
looks like something
out of the feudal empire.
There are kings and
lords and barons
and down at the
bottom, peasants.
There's this management
hierarchy that really matured.
This technology matured
about 100 years ago.
This technology came about
when the telegraph was still
an exciting, new
communication mechanism.
And management
technology has not really
evolved in any major
leaps since then.
It's an old operating system.
And it's not that there's
anything wrong with it per se.
I think it's just quickly
becoming obsolete.
The world today is moving faster
than our management systems are
able to adapt and respond.
If we want nimble, agile,
responsive organizations,
how can we make them
more responsive?
Perhaps-- perhaps we can look
at this fundamental social
technology and
innovate in that area.
How else could we run a company?
And I think this is a
worthwhile exploration
because I think a lot
of the challenges we
see in organizations today--
the bureaucracy, the politics--
they are hard to
solve by just patching
some new process on top of
the way we run a company.
In many ways, I think our
companies today are perfectly
designed to achieve significant
issues with bureaucracy,
politics, communication issues,
and all of the other stuff
that we suffer from
in most organizations.
Right?
It's a feature, not a bug--
perhaps not an intended one.
But there's something about this
fundamental social technology
that leaves a lot to be desired.
And it also brings us
some important features.
This gets us alignment.
It gets us accountability.
It gets us some way of breaking
down the work and scaling.
And we need these things too.
So when we talk about
new social technologies
for running an organization,
I think it's really important.
We don't just throw
out all structure.
And that's not what a
Holacracy is all about.
It's about replacing
this structure
with some other
way of structuring
an organization that's maybe
a little more responsive.
And why it might we
want to change this?
And what issues might
we need to deal with?
Well, when we talk about
structure at this level,
we're really
talking about power.
Who has the authority to do
what in the organization?
What can we expect
from each other?
These are deep issues.
And when humans are
involved, sometimes what
we get with our nice
org charts on paper
is a management
hierarchy that really
looks something like this.
Give you a second
to take that in.
Have you seen any of
these actually at play
in a real organization
by the way?
I've seen at least
a couple of these
actually at play as the real
power structure in a company.
And it's no wonder
humans are involved.
We're messy creatures, right?
We bring our egos and our
drama and our politics in.
And when we don't have a
good way of structuring
the work around what we're
trying to do together,
we often end up resorting to
the social dynamics at play.
So what else can we do?
Well, there's another
way-- another way
of achieving order,
which is what
we want in any organization.
We need some kind of order.
And if I look at the city
around us, we're in New York
right now.
As much as it looks like pure
chaos out there on one hand,
there's actually quite a
bit of social order at play.
I can pretty much fly
into New York and trust
that I'm going to be able
to get a taxi, find a hotel,
get some food, and whatever
else I might need to do.
And the right place--
the right services
will be there to support me and
without a boss directing them
all around.
There's no boss that made
sure the taxi was there
to pick me up-- the hotel,
the whatever, right?
It just worked.
So we ended up with
emergent order--
the kind of order that
is not imposed top down
from a centralized plan, but
the kind of order that shows up
when you have the right
framework of rules
and individuals with
the freedom to act
within that framework of rules.
We see this every day
in our modern society.
Yet when we go
into a company, we
see something very different.
We see a very different
way of achieving order.
It's an attempt to
centrally plan and control
and achieve an order by imposing
one as opposed to putting
in place the right
framework of rules
and allowing order to show up.
And many companies are
somewhere between those extremes
of course.
They're experimenting
and exploring
and many individuals when they
see structure that doesn't make
sense, say, well,
forget that, I'm
going to do what makes sense.
And the structure
often gets in the way.
And I think that's why when
we talk about structure
in companies, there's
a lot of people
that have an allergic reaction
to the idea of structure.
They associate it
with bureaucracy.
But I'd say that's
because we've got
the wrong structure or the
structure that is in the way.
When I walk around
New York, I don't
experience the structure of
the rules of the game at play
as limiting me.
It's actually enabling me.
I kind of like those
two yellow lines
in the center of the road
as much as sometimes people
ignore them.
That's structure.
It's limiting.
And yet it's enabling speed
and freedom and agility.
The right structure does that.
So how can we bring
into our organizations
a different type of structure.
And what would that look like?
Well, the first thing
that Holacracy does
is introduce a
framework of rules
just like we have in societies.
And it's captured
in a constitution.
So once a company tastes
Holacracy, they experience it,
they get a sense of it, and they
decide they want to do this.
They want to move
forward with it.
The first move is for the
CEO or department head
or whoever's adopting this
to sign a declaration ceding
their power into
this constitution,
saying I am no
longer above the law,
but I'm subject to the same
rules that everyone else is.
And here's a framework
that we'll all
be bound by as we go about
doing our work together
in this organization.
It's a pretty big shift.
Can you imagine a CEO you know
or a significant department
manager or something like that
signing a declaration saying
I'm ceding my authority to
just do whatever I want and run
things as the boss into a
framework of rules like this?
It's a cool shift.
And this constitution
you can actually
find it on GitHub
for those of you
from a technical background.
It's an open source document.
It's a fundamental
rules of the game.
I like to think of
Holacracy like a new sport.
And these are the
rules of this sport.
And it's a framework
that tells us
all how we can act and
interact and expect
things of each other and
change things in the company.
So let's look at some of the key
shifts that this set of rules
introduces.
And the first one is any of you
have a static job description?
Like something that hasn't been
updated in at least months,
if not years that
maybe is out of date--
that probably was out
of date by the time
it rolled off the printer?
When was the last time you
ran to your jobs description
to figure out what you
should be focused on today?
Right?
Anyone?
No, didn't think so.
Right?
So that's because they're
pretty much useless.
I should say they're
useful for some things.
We write them so that we
can post a job, great.
But really, how
much clarity does
a typical job description
offer for our day-to-day work?
Really, nothing.
They are bureaucratic artifacts.
Holacracy replaces those with
a new type of structure--
a new way of describing the
work-- the roles at play.
And they're dynamically updated.
So with Holacracy instead of
having one job description,
you might fill 20
different roles.
And you might fill 20 roles
in lots of different teams
all across the company.
It doesn't just have to be one
place in this siloed structure.
So you might fill lots
of different roles.
And each one is a
little chunk of work.
It's one discrete function.
And the way of describing these
roles is much more grounded.
So it has real clarity.
And companies running
with holocracy-- people
do go and reference their
job descriptions-- their role
descriptions regularly because
they have really good clarity
that's the result of the
team's collective learning.
And the reason is because
they're updated regularly
by the people doing the work.
So there's a process--
it's called governance.
I'll talk about it in
a few minutes where
each team gets together
and they learn together
and they capture that learning
and distill down what do we
need to be doing differently?
Who needs to be focused on what?
And we capture that
learning in these roles.
So they're living,
breathing, entities.
And they have
meaningful clarity.
That's one difference.
Here's another.
In most companies, you've
got a manager who delegates
some authority to you.
Rarely is that really clear.
Rarely do you know exactly
what your authority is.
More often than not, it's kind
of like you have the authority
to do whatever you're doing
as long as the manager thinks
it's generally the
right thing to do.
And as soon as they
don't, they'll get in
and they'll tell you that.
And then you better
align with what they say.
With Holacracy, instead of this
kind of delegated authority
that can be pulled back or
micromanaged at any point,
it's truly a distributed
authority paradigm.
So according to the constitution
and the fundamental rules
of this game, when you have a
role that we created together
through this
governance process, you
have the autonomy
and the authority
to do anything that makes sense
to you to get the job done--
to get the job of that
role done unless there's
an explicit rule against it.
So instead of needing
permission to act and to make
sure your manager is
happy all the time,
you've got autonomy
and authority
to go lead your role however
it makes sense to you.
And when we discover that
there's a constraint we need,
we will create that minimally
sufficient just in time.
So instead of needing
permission to act first,
you have a blanket grant to do
whatever makes sense to you.
And as we learn together,
we'll start adding constraints
just when we need them.
And there's no manager to
undelegate that authority.
So in a company like mine,
we run with Holocracy.
Everyone has a real
autonomy and authority.
Everyone can make
different decisions
and everyone knows what that
is and what the boundaries are.
So it's a lot like living
in a society, right?
I know I can do whatever I
want in my house, my property.
But if I want to go
take my neighbor's car,
I should probably
get his permission.
That's his territory--
his property.
Holacracy does the same.
It makes clear what's
mine to lead and control.
And I don't need
anyone's permission.
It's mine.
It's my territory.
I can do whatever I want.
And it makes clear
where my neighbors
are-- where the boundaries
are and what we can
expect from each other as well.
Because when we have a
autonomy in an organization,
it's got to come with
a responsibility.
So here's another shift.
What this does when we have
constantly updating roles
with real authority
is instead of
these large-scale
re-organizations--
every few years and somebody
comes in and changes
the whole structure.
Instead, we're doing
micro-reorganizations
constantly in every team.
So we are rapidly iterating on
our organizational structure.
And this isn't done at
the top and handed down.
This is done in every team.
Every team has a governance
process that they go through.
It might be twice a month.
In a more mature
organization with Holacracy,
it might be once a month
or every other month.
We pull back and we say
what are we learning
and how do we restructure our
team to capture that learning.
So rapid iterations,
micro-restructurings
throughout the organization.
And what that means because
we have this transparent rules
system and we're constantly
changing and adjusting
and learning together
is when we need
to align-- get alignment, which
we need, in most companies,
the only way you can
really get change enacted
is by working the
political system at play.
You build consensus.
Anyone find yourself
in a meeting
at any point where you're
really there to build buy-in.
Or you were there
because someone else
is trying to build your
buy-in for some change.
And we play this game in
the system to get alignment.
And that's actually
really expensive.
If every time I want to
make a change to something
and it's significant, I have to
build buy-in and get consensus
from everyone.
There's a lot of meetings.
They're painful.
And there's an
alternative, which
is get clear whose
is this to lead.
And then that
person doesn't need
to go get alignment and build
buy-in and get consensus.
They know this is mine to lead.
And I can go get input
from whoever I want.
And at the end of the day,
I'm going to make the call.
And I'm going to lead
this and make a decision.
And everyone can have
that in their area.
And if we want to
influence the person,
we have a rule system to do it.
This is the point of the
Holacracy constitution.
It gives us a
framework where if I
need to expect something
different from you than what
you're doing, I have a structure
in which I can propose that.
And we can clarify
the expectations
between us-- the boundaries
or the constraints
we're operating in.
So instead of doing that just
through political pressure,
we can simply go use the rules.
So what we end up with
is something a lot more
like a sport where once
everyone knows the rules,
you usually don't see the
players thinking about them.
They're just on the field.
They're playing the game.
They all have autonomy.
You don't see.
You don't see athletes
calling meetings to figure out
who should pass the ball next.
Are you OK with me
passing the ball to you?
Is that OK now?
You also don't see managers
directing the field.
When people are
out on the field,
they're using their
judgment in their roles
with autonomy leading.
And everyone's
doing that together.
And the rules are simply
the framework behind them.
They're not in the way.
They're simply what gives
you a game in the first place
to play.
Now learning the game is
a totally different story.
And you've got to
learn the rules.
And there's a whole
learning curve to this.
But once you know
the rules, they
fade away to the background
if it's the right game.
So let's look a little more
about how this actually
shows up-- what it actually
looks like-- how it works.
And here's an example of a role.
So this is a role I fill--
Holacracy spokesperson.
And it has a purpose.
Crystallize and convey
the Holacracy brand--
reveal its why to the world.
So I also have some
accountabilities.
These are things that
others can expect of me.
So to go along with my
autonomy in this role,
I have some responsibilities
and captures them and tells
everyone else what
they can expect.
And when I fill a role
like this in Holacracy,
I don't need permission
from a manager.
There are no managers.
I don't need permission
from anyone to do my job.
I can do anything that
makes sense to me.
I can make any decision
and take any action
to express that purpose.
As long as I don't violate an
explicit rule or constraint
that's been documented
somewhere-- so
broad grant of authority.
And here's how we might see some
of those constraints play out.
Here's another role.
This is our web architect
role filled by a colleague
of mine, Olivier.
And it has its own purpose--
clear and sexy website
for Holacracy and
HolacracyOne, my company.
And notice this website-- or
sorry, this role Web Architect,
has a domain.
Domain-- think of that
as property of this role.
Its domain.
It controls our website.
What that tells me is although I
have all the freedom in my role
to do whatever
makes sense to me,
if I want to mess
with our website,
I need this role's permission.
Kind of like in our society,
I know I have the freedom
to lead my life however I want.
But if I want to use
my neighbor's car,
I better get his permission.
We have a framework of clear
boundaries with clear property.
And we know who controls what.
And we know what we can
expect from each other.
We have agreements.
We might have a neighborhood
association or what
have you-- the same thing here.
So I know that I have a
lot of freedom in my role.
But he controls the
website-- integrate with him
if I want to do something
on the web and vice versa.
He's got a purpose.
He's got the authority to
do anything that makes sense
to him to get the job done.
And he needs to honor
other people's property.
So what we end up
with is a system
where there is no boss
delegating and directing
everyone else.
Yet there are clear ownership.
So it's not a consensus
based system at all.
Every role knows
here's my territory.
And I can lead
that autocratically
within my responsibilities
and any constraints
that we have defined
in governance together.
And that governance
process happens
in what we call a circle.
So circles group roles together.
The metaphor I like
for this-- think
of the roles like little cells.
Each one has an autonomy.
Every cell in your body has its
own self-organizing process--
its own structure-- its own
area that it deals with.
Its own processes.
And yet each cell is
also part of an organ.
And that organ doesn't
violate the autonomy of cells.
Rather it adds
another larger entity
that integrates
them-- that deals
with the flows between cells.
And that's what a circle does
in Holacracy for its roles.
So this is nature's way
of scaling and organizing.
And a circle in Holacracy
is like that organ.
And what circles do every
month or thereabouts--
they'll hold a
governance meeting.
And this happens
asynchronously between meetings
as well where every role
in the circle-- anyone who
fills a role is invited to
participate in the governance
process of the circle.
So everyone who fills
a role-- this circle--
it's our marketing circle
outreach we call it--
it includes the two roles we
looked at-- my spokesperson
role-- the web architect.
And we show up in this
governance meeting.
And that's where we define the
boundaries between our roles.
That's where we define what's
his to control-- what's mine.
What do we expect
from each other.
We can create new roles
whenever we need them.
And, remember, people
fill many roles.
So that doesn't
mean hiring someone.
I fill 20-some
roles in my company.
So we can create
any role we want
and then go shop around and
find the best fit for that role.
We can change roles.
We can add
expectations on roles,
constrain roles--
whatever we need
to do through this
governance process.
And in that governance
process, anyone filling a role
has a voice.
But we only use this
collective process
to define the boundaries-- to
define the scope of authority
of the different roles.
Day to day when we're
executing, we're
not trying to come to
consensus on every decision.
We're just getting
the job done given
the authority we've been
granted through this governance
process.
Even in the governance
process, it's
not a consensus-based process.
And it's one that's
actually grounded
in logic and arguments.
Anyone can show
up and say, here's
something that got in the
way of getting the work done.
Here's an example.
And to resolve that and
prevent it from ever recurring,
I'd like to add a new
expectation onto our web
architect role or whatever.
And then there's a process of
sorting that proposal through.
Everyone gets some
input into it.
Although you can't just
say I don't like it.
You got to say, well, here's
why that would cause harm
in my work.
And then we'll integrate
and we'll sort that out.
And we'll come out with
some new governance
that defines new expectations
for the team that work.
And then we can go embody those
expectations, executing them,
get the job done day to day.
So we have a
self-organizing process.
And this scales.
This is a fractal structure.
So every level kind of
works the same, right?
So we don't just have
roles within circles.
We have circles within
circles within circles.
And this is, again, a
very organic process.
So just like the
human body-- cells
within organs
within organ systems
within an overall organism.
There's no boss cell in
your body believe it or not.
Right?
There's no one boss cell that
is telling all the other cells
what to do and how to work.
Rather every cell
has autonomy and yet
they also have to be aligned
with the broader organ.
They have to figure out how
they work with the other cells.
And that's kind of
what the organs do.
They group them together
and deal with flows.
And then there are larger
systems that group organs.
That's what this is.
So it's a fractal structure.
Again, a lot like
nature, this is
nature's way of dealing
with complexity at scale.
And within this, everything's
changing constantly.
Every one of these
roles-- they're dynamic.
They're updated in regular
governance meetings happening
in every circle as
we learn together
to keep it grounded and real.
So it's a very dynamic process.
And this is why when
if you read the press,
there's some misunderstandings
out there in Holacracy.
One of them is that this
is a "flat" structure
or no structure.
And it's not.
It's actually more structured
than a typical management
hierarchy.
It's just a different
kind of structure.
And it's one that is
really trying to align
with what's actually needed.
It's the kind of structure more
like those two yellow lines
in the road.
Not the kind that gets
in your way that's
bureaucracy and limits
you, but the kind that
enables us to go fast together.
It's minimal, just-in-time
dynamic structure.
But it is structure.
And its clarity.
Who can decide what?
Who can expect what from whom?
All of that.
And let's talk about one
other piece, which is what
drives change in the system?
And, again, the same
thing that drives
change in many living
systems-- tension.
And with Holacracy, we don't
mean tension in a negative way.
So I define tension
as simply the feeling
you get when you sense a
gap between where we are
and where we could
be or some potential
that's better in some way.
We sense a lot of these.
Yet, how many people can say,
you know, anything I sense.
Any tension I sense, any gap,
anything that could be better,
I know exactly
what to do with it
to drive a rapid,
meaningful change anywhere
in the organization.
Very few companies today can
fully harness the sensing
that everyone within is doing.
More often than
not, you get people
who have sensed issues
for years and don't
know how to drive change.
So all they can do
is complain about it
or get apathetic
or wait and bide
their time for an opportunity.
None of that is
using that wisdom.
None of that is
actually taking what
we're sensing and
incorporating that
into a learning
organism of the company.
So the goal of Holacracy
is pretty simple.
It's to make sure any
tension sensed by anyone
anywhere in the
organization has a place
to go to get rapidly
and reliably processed
into meaningful change,
at least to the extent
that it's relevant to
the company's work--
its purpose in the world.
And this also keeps us
really, really grounded.
How many organizational
designs do you
see today that are the
product of somebody's vision?
And, actually,
that sounds great.
But I think there's a
lot of issues with that.
Anyone here in the
software development world?
I'm imagining many
of you, right?
Have you ever seen
software designs
that are the result of
somebody's good ideas
and vision and they apply
this whole architecture
to a software product
as opposed to listening
to what the customers
want and listening
to what the code even is
telling you and keeping
a more agile, adaptive design,
letting the design tell you
what it wants to be
instead of you imposing all
of your good ideas up front?
We learned a long time
ago in the software world
that that kind of
waterfall design process
doesn't lead to
great results when
you have dynamic complexity
in the world-- when
you have a lot of
change, a lot of input,
and you've got to learn.
Our organizations today
are in that world too.
And get the approach we take
to designing organizations
is very much
somebody's big vision,
grand ideas, top-down
imposed applied design.
And then it's static.
And it doesn't change that much.
And the best we can do in
that is try to work around it.
And we experience the structure
is getting in the way,
limiting bureaucratic structure.
If we want to respond
to a world that
is changing fast with
our companies today,
we need companies that can
be responsive to everything
sensed by everyone within and
let the design evolve itself.
So Holocracy can be described
as an evolutionary design
algorithm rhythm for a company.
What it does is
let the tensions we
sense tell us where we need
to change our organization's
design.
So the design evolves one
tension at a time by somebody
sensing what's getting
in the way of the work
and then doing something
about it, responding to it,
adapting-- changing the design
of the company and testing it.
How does that work?
Is that better?
Or do we sense more tensions?
Great!
More tensions.
Good.
Let's adapt it again.
So a company running
with Holacracy, the goal
is not to be without tension.
It's just that the same ones
aren't plaguing us for years
that we're not listening to.
We want to deal with
those so that we
are free to sense the
next tension as we adapt
and evolve in our environment.
That is the whirlwind
tour of Holacracy.
I want to save plenty
of time for Q&A
because I got to imagine
there's probably more questions
than you came in with perhaps.
Often there is.
And then I think there's
a book signing afterwards.
And anyone who wants
to stick around,
I'm happy to chat for
a bit-- so questions?
Yeah, mics.
AUDIENCE: Hi, so suppose
that an individual in 10
roles and those 10
roles are in 10 circles,
does that mean 10 governments
meetings per month?
And if so, how much of
your time does this take?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah,
10 different circles
would be a lot.
Most people,
practically speaking,
in companies running
with Holocracy,
you might have people in two
or three circles-- maybe four
or five.
But more than
that's really rare.
It means they're invited to
that many governance meetings.
But like everything
Holacracy is tension
driven-- tension needing
to change the governance.
Skip the meeting.
Don't bother.
If you have a tension, and you
want to change the structure,
then show up.
And the beauty of the governance
process in holocracy--
when you show up with
attention and you
take the time to go to a
meeting and you address it,
what you're doing is
changing the structure
so that tension
never recurs and we
know exactly who can make which
decisions and you don't need
to go to a meeting anymore.
So what you're actually
doing in the meetings
is removing the need to go
to meetings by getting really
clear on who does what so
that we never need to talk
about this in a meeting again.
AUDIENCE: So is it
always clear enough
who else your tensions
affect to make sure
that they attend the meeting
because if they didn't know
about it, they could show up.
BRIAN ROBERTSON:
Yeah, and usually yes.
If somebody gets a tension
they need somebody else,
one of the rules
in the constitution
is if somebody requests
that you priotize something
in a meeting, you need
to make it a priority
with some constraints.
But generally, yeah.
Great.
Yeah?
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
So I have to fairly
unrelated questions.
One is you mentioned at the
beginning that leaders would,
or managers, would see their
authority-- power of control
to the constitution-- what
would their role then entail?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yes, this is
one of the great challenges
and changes that
companies sort through.
And it's not easy.
So imagine you're a manager.
You've climbed the rungs
in that corporate ladder.
You've got a bunch
of direct reports.
And, suddenly, there is a
system that bakes management
in as just a process
that everybody
engages in to some degree.
And you don't need a
manager in the same way.
What those managers need
to do is make the shift
to being more like
an entrepreneur
than a professional manager.
In other words, how can I
create value in this team?
How can I actually do something
that needs to get done?
Catch something falling
through the cracks?
Build structure so that I've
got the right roles in the right
processes in place.
So some of that is similar
to what good managers tend
to do anyway.
And some of it is
new and different.
And there's a big.
So often those managers end
up filling lots of roles.
And they are creative roles.
They are roles that aren't
just coordinating among people,
but actually getting to build
and create and add value
in new ways.
And some people won't
make the transition.
Some people will
say, you know what?
I have a staked my self-esteem
on being a manager.
And I do not want
to let that go.
Or I've done it this
way for 20 years.
And I don't want
to learn anyway.
And they'll opt out.
And you'll see that too.
AUDIENCE: And I see on
the book that the forward
is by a David Allen.
And I was curious about if you
had any thoughts on any work
you had or
collaborations with him
or things like that--
general comments.
BRIAN ROBERTSON:
Yeah, so anybody
know David Allen's work?
Are you familiar?
A bunch of you.
He wrote a book called
"Getting Things Done."
He is a productivity guru.
He is a personal hero of mine.
His company runs with Holacracy.
And, yeah, so he was kind
enough to write the forward too.
He was actually one of the
earliest adopters of the system
many years ago now.
And for him, it was
an extension of what
GTD, or getting things
done, his method-- what
that does for an individual
of getting really clear.
What are all of the inputs
coming into my world?
And how do I respond to
them quickly and consciously
and stay clear and organized?
He views Holacracy as doing
that for an organization-- so
the same kind of thing that
GTD does for an individual.
Holacracy is the same.
It's about sorting
out all this stuff--
the tensions-- the input
coming in-- and figuring out,
all right, how do we clear
those out of the way--
respond to each appropriately,
and then have space
to be creative together.
AUDIENCE: That's a really
interesting framing way
to look at it.
BRIAN ROBERTSON:
Yeah, definitely.
Thank you.
AUDIENCE: Hey, Brian, I'm Jason.
Thanks for coming in.
So you gave us a straight
overview of the system.
I'm curious about the outcomes.
So who's using this?
And are they're really
seeing significant results
that are different than, say,
a traditional organization?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah, so right
now today as best we can tell,
there's somewhere around a
few hundred companies out
there doing this.
And we don't have any
actual hard data metrics
that we've collected yet.
I really look forward to that.
Harvard Business School is
doing an actual research project
right now on one of
the companies going
through the transition.
And I hope that'll
be the first step
to getting some real
academic research
and what effect it has.
And so I don't have any
actual hard numbers.
I have a lot of
anecdotal stories.
And one of the
challenges of this
is it's such a
fundamental change.
How do you know whether--
even great numbers.
One company reported
massive increases.
They showed the revenue graph.
And it was like this.
And then it just went like this
once they adopted Holacracy.
But I'm skeptical.
I love the data.
And if somebody wants numbers,
I'll throw that one at them.
But how do you know
that was because
of Holacracy versus anything
else in their world?
I look at this.
It's like changing
your operating system.
So I'm a Mac user.
I upgraded from being a
PC user several years ago,
jumped into the Mac, and for
me, it's just a better platform.
And my productivity, I
feel like it's higher.
I think I can get
stuff done more easily.
The operating system is
in the way less often.
It gives me great platform
to build on top of.
But I could tie any specific
metrics I might want to.
And it's hard to tie it back.
It's more just I have
a better platform.
So for me, the best
judge-- and what
I encourage all of
our clients and anyone
trying this to really tune
into is your own experience
of is it easier or
harder to use your voice
and drive some positive change?
And I think that's a really
interesting, reliable metric.
And if you look at, for me, when
I switched from Windows to Mac,
I just feel like I can get
stuff done faster and easier.
And I hear the same from
companies that switch to this
all the time.
And that's actually why
many executives and CEOs
make the switch
after they try it
even just for a couple of days.
Through the different processes,
Holacracy shows up and adds.
And at the end of that, they
have a direct experience
of how did this way of
dealing with my tensions
compare to what I would
have done in the old system.
And they get to see
in the old system,
I would've talked to a
bunch of people, built
a bunch of buy-in, called some
meetings, wrestled with it,
and maybe a year
later, we would change.
In the new system,
it happens faster.
So just one example-- in Zappos,
which runs with Holacracy
as well, there was a meeting
of one of their circles
where they restructured
a business unit.
And this was apparently
a contentious issue.
There was a lot of intense
feelings in the room.
And there was a
proposal to restructure,
slice and dice this
thing, and change
some of what was
expected from it.
And at the end of
about 20, 25 minutes,
we ended up with a
new, integrated output
of total restructure
to this unit.
And with everyone there,
bought into the path
forward, even after people
raised significant issues
with it, we sorted all them out.
20, 25 minutes later we're done.
They came up to me
afterwards and said
we've been wrestling with that
issue for literally years--
through hours and hours and
hours and hours of talking,
political influencing, meetings.
And we never got to
clear resolution.
And it just carried
it through inertia.
We just kept it the way it was.
Nobody liked it.
But we couldn't agree
on what to do about it.
And now in 20 minutes,
we just nailed it.
And everyone's comfortable.
Not that we've got
the perfect result,
but that we've got a next step.
And we can come back to
this meeting next month
and continue to evolve it
further as we learn what works
and what doesn't about this.
So to me, that's the
metric that I like to.
Is it easier or
harder to drive change
and to get tensions
addressed in the system,
AUDIENCE: Hey, Brian, thanks
for coming and explaining.
It really is interesting.
So I understand the
structure and the freedom
and the principles of Holacracy.
In my experience,
one of the detriments
I see to organizations is
more about ego and insecurity.
And so I'm just
wondering how those--
especially when you
give a lot of freedom,
you're going to-- this
idea of land grabbing
is always the term, right?
And you get these people
that are operating
in that respect and the damage
it can do to an organizations.
How does that work
in your system?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah, so I wish
I had an extra hour for you.
This is one of my favorite
parts of Holacracy, actually.
And it shows up in
some of the rules
of the decision making process
used in the governance meeting.
And those rules are there
to keep egos in check
from influencing
your organization.
It doesn't make people
saints that have no egos.
What it does is prevent the egos
from dominating the meeting.
And there's all sorts
of interesting rules
and a facilitation
process that's
used to cut through that.
If you want to see
more of that, we
have a video simulation
of the governance
meeting on our
website that you can
go watch and see those rules.
And they're specifically
about how they deal with ego.
But just to give you one a
little example, a little taste.
In the governance
meeting process,
let's say someone shows up
and they propose a change.
I think we should add this
expectation to this role
or give this rule this
authority, whatever.
There's a place where everybody
gets to then raise objections
to that.
But objections are
not just I don't
like it or all
the egoic response
that sometimes people have.
It doesn't solve my thing.
Instead, there's these rules
of what is a valid objection
and what's not.
And if somebody just shows
up-- here is a real example.
I had a team.
It was a project
management team.
They were managing a
big, new initiative.
And somebody brought a proposal.
Someone else gets really
fired up, starts to jump in,
and interrupt.
And there's rules, actually,
even about giving people
space to speak and
not interrupting
so I stop the person
I was facilitating--
stop the person until
it got to her turn.
And then she had a
bunch to say about it.
We got to the objection part.
And she says, objection!
Yeah, this has been an
issue for us for years.
And I'm so frustrated by it.
And that won't solve it.
And she went on and on and on.
The poor proposer was not trying
to solve that person's issue.
They were trying to solve
their own little piece of it
that they needed to
get their work done.
And here's somebody else
from an intentionally--
she was trying to help.
But it was getting in the way of
this person solving one issue.
So she says objection.
She says all this.
And then using one of the
rules in the constitution,
I asked her this issue
you're having now--
is that going to be
created by her proposal?
Or is that already an
issue that you would like
to solve independent of this.
And, of course, she says, oh
no, that's already an issue.
I've been suffering
from it for years.
And I said, OK, well then
that's not a valid objection,
according to the
rules of the game
because our goal is not
addressed her issue.
It's only to address
the proposers.
That's it-- that one issue.
So for her to
raise an objection,
she has to be able to say here's
why that proposal will get
in the way of me doing my work.
And she has to
describe it concretely.
Not just, I don't like it.
It doesn't solve my pet
issue that I want to solve
or anything else.
So there's a lot of rules like
that that are just subtle.
They are questions.
And they help sort
through and keep
us laser-focused on processing
one tension at a time
sensed by one person without
anyone else's stuff getting
in the way.
And after that, I
invited her-- you're
welcome to add your
item to the agenda.
And when we get
there, we'll focus
on processing your
attention however we can.
So it's really about
giving everyone
a space to process their
tensions without all
the egos getting in the way.
AUDIENCE: Cool, thanks
BRIAN ROBERTSON: And there's
more the book as well
about that whole process.
Yeah?
AUDIENCE: Hi, I totally get how
these processes can help make
incremental tactical changes.
And I was wondering is there
a place for longer term more
strategic thinking.
And if so, what sorts of
circles-- what roles would
you have to achieve that goal.
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah,
definitely, absolutely.
So, again, it's tension driven.
So if somebody has
a attention of,
man, I think we need to be
looking at longer term, bigger
picture, strategic stuff.
Great!
Process that tension.
Maybe we need to create a role.
We have roles like a
pricing strategy role
in my company, which looks
at across all of our business
lines-- big picture.
What are we trying to achieve
with our overall business
model and all that.
We have another role that looks
at how can we support companies
that are trying to do it
themselves-- do it yourself
Holacracy adoption,
which is really hard.
But we have a role that
that's the big picture of you.
They're looking years out.
What tools can we create?
How can we make that easier?
So whatever you need to do, just
show up, process that tension,
and create whatever you need to.
Another example-- the governance
meetings although they often
are dealing with micro stuff
because often the micro stuff
is what's actually
getting in the way
most practically in the work.
Sometimes though they really
do pull up really high levels.
So we had one just last
week actually where
one of our team
members showed up
and he had a circle team
that was doing some work.
And it just didn't feel right.
So he showed up and he
said, I propose we just
remove that circle, drop
it, toss it out, kill it.
It was an interesting proposal.
And there were a lot of
objections-- reasons why
that circle is actually doing
important work that we really
need.
And then to resolve
those objections,
we pulled up to the
kind of 50,000 foot view
and looked at what is the circle
doing that really matters?
And why does the
circle feel weird?
And what can we do
with those functions?
And, ultimately, we
restructured our whole vision.
Inside of about 45
minutes, we completely
restructured, killed one
circle, put functions elsewhere.
And it's really cool to see that
kind of dynamic reorganization
happening regularly in
companies instead of it's static
and its stuck in
what they're doing.
And it is often the big,
strategic solution almost,
but one tension at a time.
And for me, this is the
really interesting thing
is it's like imagine a company
is a ball of yarn of tensions.
Every thread is a tension.
And it's all woven together.
The temptation in
a lot of companies
is to look at the ball
of yarn, pull back
to get really strategic,
and figure out
how are we going to untangle
all of these different tensions
and solve it all.
Holacracy invites a
slightly different approach,
which is grab one thread--
pull that one thread out.
Disentangle just that one
thread-- that one tension
from everything else instead
of trying to solve all of it
at once, which often means we
talk about it forever and don't
actually change anything.
Solve that one thread.
Good.
Now solve the next one
until, eventually, there's
no more ball of yarn.
AUDIENCE: So going
by your terminology,
I think a lot of
tensions in organizations
are around three pillars, which
are motivations, incentives,
and vision.
Right?
So a founder, like, for
example, Larry here,
might have a vision that,
hey, I want to is the world.
I want to Google to be
present 30 years from now.
But I'm pretty sure there's some
employee-- someone at Google
who is thinking, you know what?
Screw all of that.
I want to make my paycheck
bigger in the next six months.
And that's all I care about.
If Google starts
going down, who cares?
I'll just jump ship
to some other company.
So how-- and this
is just one example.
But how do you align
those kind of tensions?
And I think that's why the
management structure exists
that someone says, no,
you want to do that?
Go do it somewhere else.
This is how Google
wants to do things.
And that's where the
top-down hierarchy comes in.
BRIAN ROBERTSON:
Yeah, so a huge piece
of the puzzle-- not the only
piece, but a huge piece here,
is purpose.
So Holacracy is a
purpose-driven system,
which means the whole thing
we're organizing around
is what is the ultimate
purpose of the company.
And how are we going to
express it in the world.
And that breaks down.
So every role has its
piece of that-- its purpose
within this overall system.
So that's one of the alignment
functions in Holacracy
is it's all about aligning
around purpose as opposed
to aligning around a person
like a manager, which
a lot of management
hierarchies fall into.
People really align around
what the manager wants
or how they see the
world as opposed
to around the purpose at play.
And that also gives an
element of motivation too.
For me, when you get to
fully use your autonomy,
your capacity,
your creative gifts
to serve a purpose that
you've chosen to serve.
There's a certain kind
of intrinsic motivation
that can show up.
Not that it's guaranteed to.
Some people are still
doing it for the paycheck.
And then there's a whole
range in between of, hey,
I want the paycheck.
But this is cool work.
But I see at least a shift
towards that when companies
shift to have really clear
purpose that is compelling,
that's broken down, and everyone
has a place and the autonomy
to choose something that they
want to express and do it,
you get a different kind of
motivational force, which often
then has pay and other concerns
like that less of a front
and center focus.
Not that they're
unimportant, but
at least not the main driver
of motivation anymore.
And Holacracy isn't
a cure-all for that.
Companies still have to wrestle
with that, even with Holacracy.
AUDIENCE: Cool, thanks.
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah?
AUDIENCE: Hi, I have
a few questions.
One is-- you were
talking about pay.
How do you decide
what people get paid?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: I
was wondering when
somebody would ask that because
it comes up in every talk
I give.
So to use a metaphor,
again, think of Holacracy
like a new operating system.
It isn't a full,
complete package
with all the apps you
need in your organization.
Right?
It's like I love my Mac, but
I download a calendar app
because I don't particularly
like the built-in one,
whatever.
I download other apps.
Holacracy does not tell
you how to do compensation.
But you need an app to do that.
So there are many approaches.
And every company
that uses Holacracy
could do that a
little different.
They might install a different
app for compensation.
And the same with a number
of other business processes--
firing, benefits,
all of these things
are kind of like the
apps of business.
And that's said,
to avoid completely
dodging the question, let
me give you a common answer.
Here's one app that's
actually fairly common now.
It's growing out there.
My company uses it.
Zappos is moving to
something like it too.
And it's a badge-based
compensation app
where badges represent
skills you've demonstrated
to your peers that you have.
So you can earn badges
in different skills.
There's a library of badges.
There's a process by
which you can propose
a new badge-- a new
skill that you think
needs to be recognized.
And anyone can initiate that.
And then anyone who's earned
the same set about badges
will get paid the same.
And that's transparent
and everyone can see it.
If you have this set of badges,
your pay is going to be that.
And if you get this set
plus these two more,
then your pay is
going to be this.
And if you think there's a set
of badges that doesn't show up
there and should have
a different pay level,
you can propose it
and say, you know,
these badges are worth this much
and these are worth that much,
then I think my set of badges
here should be worth this much.
And there's a process
to evaluate that and get
it put in place.
So what you end
up with is instead
of one linear climb
across a ladder
and pay is by management,
grade or whatever,
you end up with a
very dynamic system
where you can grow and
develop in any number of ways
by developing
different skills that
are useful to the organization.
And based on the skills you've
demonstrated to your peers
that you are using
clearly and have,
that will drive your pay in a
very peer-to-peer distributed
process.
So that's one approach--
not required by Holacracy,
but a common app that's
Holacracy compatible.
AUDIENCE: Thanks.
And I want to ask
one more thing.
You have all these roles the
people decide on and define.
And then you have all the
people in your organization.
What happens if someone's
role disappears and they
need to go somewhere else?
Or you need to fill new
roles in your circle.
And you need to get
people from somewhere.
How does that happen?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah, think
of it like a marketplace.
You got your buyers and sellers.
And you need to connect them
and find the right transactions.
So we talk about the
role marketplace,
which is all these roles,
even in a small company.
20 people-- you might
have hundreds of roles
that need to get filled.
And there are new ones
showing up constantly.
So there's an
internal marketplace
that develops of, hey, we've
got a new role in this circle.
Here's what it is.
And somebody's pitching to try
to find someone to fill it.
And you get some candidates that
are looking for new roles that
are not completely booked.
Or they just want something new
and creative add to their mix.
And so they're shopping around.
And they find this role.
And then there's, of
course, still a need
to make sure they're
the right fit.
So there's another role that
is assigning people to roles
and making sure they're the
right fit for those roles.
And that's going
to the market maker
that's bring them together.
And lots of different
companies will then
do things to make that easier.
Zappos use-- we have a
software app that supports
companies using Holacracy.
They're using the API to
build a whole role marketplace
app as an extension of that
because they have 1,500 people
and lots of roles.
So they're making
it easier for people
to search and tag roles and
find the right fits for them.
AUDIENCE: Cool, thanks.
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Cool, thanks.
AUDIENCE: I have
a quick question.
Thanks for coming.
Now I was thinking
that Holacracy--
on paper, that sounds great.
It's transparent.
It gives people the power.
In case of crisis, it's not
like the South Park episode
where every bigger
leader keeps walking in
and keeps changing the process.
And no one really knows
what the problem is.
And the problem, actually,
the solver who knows it
is very deep down into the
hierarchy without any power.
That's apparently the problem
that Holacracy seems to solve.
But as an organization
that already
has its own structure
and its own hierarchy
built into it-- and the
people have worked hard
to get high up there--
how do you start injecting
such things easily and
not like in a big bang
that people don't forget
the growing pain that much?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah, to
some extent, I have no idea.
Good luck.
What I mean by that
is it's huge change.
And you can't-- at least I have
not yet found a way to avoid
all of the pain
of transformation.
You don't change an existing
management hierarchy
to something like this without
going through some challenge
along the way.
That said, we have
found some things that
might help minimize it some.
And one for larger organizations
is pilot it somewhere.
Don't just try to go over
whole organization all at
once all upfront.
That's hugely painful.
Find a department, division,
team, subsidiarr-- something
that has enough insulation from
the broader corporate system
to say we're going to do things
differently on this team.
And that's what Zappos did.
They didn't start
across 1,500 people.
They started in a department
of about 100 people.
And they piloted
it there and got
built in internal
expertise, which helped them
with their broader rollout.
So they did that.
That's one technique.
Another is there's lots
of ways to support it
with the right support,
coaching, training.
Think of it like
learning a new sport.
You could try to learn a
new sport or a complex game
by reading the
rule book and then
jumping in with
a bunch of people
that have only read the rule
book and trying to play.
And that's going to
be really awkward.
Or you can get out on the field
people who have played before
and a coach and not worry
about the rules too much.
You'll learn those
as you play, right.
And then get some
on-the-field instruction.
And that's going to be a
much easier way to learn.
So that's another piece of that.
And finally, there
are certainly a lot
of things you can
take out of this.
There's a whole chapter
in the book that's
really just if I can't do
this whole thing, what can I
pull out of it?
What little techniques
can I use in my team.
So that can be really valuable.
Although, that said, if you can,
better to do all of Holacracy
in part of the company
than part of Holacracy
in all of the company.
And what I mean by that is
think of it like playing a game.
You're not really playing
soccer if you adopt one rule.
And if you want to be a
World Cup soccer player,
you don't get there by mastering
one rule at a time slowly.
You get there by doing all the
rules when you're six years old
and being sloppy
and messy at them.
And you're playing
six-year-old soccer.
And then eventually your
playing high school soccer
and professional soccer and
maybe someday World Cup.
So better to adopt all of
it and part of the company
and accept it's
going to be messy.
It's going to be clunky
and awkward and painful
and slow at first.
But as you get better and the
rules fade to the background
and you're now really
playing-- you're
an athlete-- everything
transforms slowly.
AUDIENCE: Thanks.
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Cool.
Thank you.
AUDIENCE: Thank you for coming.
I just wondered personally
your experience being a CEO
and then ceding your authority.
And this thing
that you've created
has taken on a life of its own.
I just wondered
what that experience
has been like for you.
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah.
It's been an interesting
one for sure.
I have a colleague that
does this work in France.
And he also is an ex-CEO.
And he said, it's funny.
A lot of people think that
would be really hard for CEOs
to actually let go
of power like that.
He said, his
experiences-- most of them
are very happy to do that.
And it's actually pretty
easy for them, at least
to make that leap.
Learning the rules is another
thing and transitioning.
And I've actually found
something very similar.
It's not every CEO by any
stretch, but many of them,
they want a better way
to run their company.
They know that for this
thing to scale and outgrow
their limits of themselves,
they need to get power
in other people's hands.
They need to not
hold everything.
So many of them are already
looking for approaches
to get them out of being
the central bottleneck
in the system and yet that still
provide order and transparency
and don't end up crushing
the company they built.
So many of them are very
comfortable signing that.
Where it gets interesting is
when I as a Holacracy coach,
show up in a meeting with an
executive team or whatever
and the CEO jumps in just out
of habit and tells somebody,
hey, why don't you then
take on this or whatever.
And I have to jump
in and say, whoa,
you don't actually
have the authority
to tell that person
what to do anymore.
You've ceded that authority.
And there's no governance.
So you have no
right to expect it.
Would you like to go
to a governance meeting
and propose an
accountability on his role?
And he might raise objections.
And then we'll integrate them.
So that's an interesting
than experience.
But, again, most CEOs I
work with the rise to that
quite well.
It's still a learning curve.
And they have to learn
new ways to lead.
It's probably going back
to what kind of leaders
adopt something like this.
It's those that are ready
for going back and learning
new ways to influence and
want something new anyway.
AUDIENCE: So it seems that the
way that roles are handed out,
there's a big focus on
self-actualization, finding
something that's a right fit
for you that's exciting for you
or that you're motivated by.
How do you deal with the
fact that this grunge
work that has to be done
that's attractive to no one?
How do you motivate people to
do the crap job, so to speak?
BRIAN ROBERTSON:
Yeah, so two answers.
One of them is something
I find happening
in my company and others often,
which is it's not a problem.
And I keep expecting it to be.
I keep waiting for--
we have this new role.
And it's horrible work.
I mean, who would
want to do that.
It sucks.
And somebody volunteers.
And I haven't quite
figured that one out yet.
I think it might just
simply be the nature of when
you feel this kind of
peer-to-peer collaboration.
And everyone knows
somebody needs to do that.
And they've got other
work that they love to do.
And if I could be of
service and help out and do
this crap role, then fine,
great, I can do that.
I'll volunteer.
So often, it just takes care
of itself, but not always.
And in that case, the
same thing applies
in any company still applies.
Sometimes when you're
hired for a job,
it comes with conditions.
And the same is true here.
You might hire somebody
into this on the condition
that they accept role
assignments like these.
So we'll have that with
somebody we bring in
and somebody who
joins our company,
they might have some
agreements that they come in
with like you'll
fill any roll that
deals with this kind of work.
And as part of your employment,
that's an expectation so
that others know they can assign
that person to those rules
if the need to.
AUDIENCE: But it still seems
it's very awkward to enforce,
right?
Or even just
underperformance in general
is something that's
difficult to talk about
in a group in front of
the large number peers
that you have to sit
next to every day.
So how do you in
practice point out
that someone is not fulfilling
the expectations of their role
in the way that if other
people disagree with you,
you now feel like you have
to shrivel up in a corner
and looking at the person.
BRIAN ROBERTSON:
Yeah, that's awkward.
So the first line of
defense with Holacracy
is make it a discussion
that we never
have to have in the
first place by making
blindingly obvious the
performance issue to everyone,
including the person
with the issue.
That doesn't always work.
But a lot of
Holacracy's processes
are designed to get more
transparency of everything--
what's going on.
So often I see people
self-selecting out
before anyone has to talk
about their performance
because it's really
uncomfortable being the one
that everyone sees not
performing and you know it.
And you see it yourself.
Or sometimes I'll see
people calling themselves
out and saying,
look, guys, I know
I'm doing terrible in this role.
But I don't know that
we have a better fit.
And I'm holding the line
as best I can until we find
the right person to do it.
And then it can be an open,
transparent discussion.
So that's the first
line of defense.
It doesn't always work.
But it happens more
often in companies
with a lot of transparency.
And the second is you still
need somebody whose job it
is to watch performance.
And if they've got a
better fit for a role,
get someone out of it.
And put someone else in.
And that still shows up
in Holacracy as well.
AUDIENCE: So that
person is essentially
a manager then in that role.
BRIAN ROBERTSON: The
interesting thing
is they have no authority to
tell the person what to do.
They have no authority
to fire that person.
That person might have 19
other roles in other circles.
They have no authority to
tell that person what they're
paid in most
companies using a comp
app like the one I described.
They have no authority
to tell the person
to take on these projects
or these actions.
All they're doing is
saying, are you the best fit
I've got for this role?
Once they put you
in the role, it
is yours to lead until
they say, OK, great,
I've got a better fit.
I'm making a change.
So it's a function that we
associate with managers.
And that's one of
the tricky things.
Those functions do still exist.
They're just different.
And they're divided out
differently in Holacracy.
AUDIENCE: Thanks.
BRIAN ROBERTSON: All right,
well thank you everyone.
Appreciate your
time for questions.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
AUDIENCE: Hi, I
got two questions.
The first one is how do you
deal with existing organizations
where they are used to
managing with authority.
They are used to their power
struggles and horse trading
and all that stuff.
How do you switch them over?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah, with
a lot of effort and coaching.
It's not easy.
AUDIENCE: What would be,
I guess, the motivation?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: The
motivation to change?
Usually, it's somebody at the
top that starts having a vision
and seeing that this management
hierarchy is limiting
our flexibility--
our responsiveness.
Or they like Tony at Zappos
said, I know as we grow,
bureaucracy sets in.
And I want to grow more like
a city, more innovation, more
entrepreneuralism.
So it's usually somebody
starting to sense the limits.
If you don't have
anyone experiencing
any tension about the
current structure,
it's really difficult to find
anyone that wants to change it.
But when you find
someone that sees
the potential for something
different, than Holacracy
gives a tool for, OK,
here's something different,
you can just do.
And then there's
the coaching process
of shifting managers
from being managers
to being very different
entrepreneurs, shifting
other people that are used to
looking to managers to make
decisions and kind of
hiding in the hierarchy
to step out and
own their autonomy
and own their authority.
There's a lot of coaching
that goes into all that.
AUDIENCE: And my
second question is
about how do you deal
with low performers that
decide to come out with a little
circle that does basically very
little?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah,
the first line of defense
is simply transparency when it's
obvious to everyone around them
that that guy's not
performing, that
creates a lot of peer pressure.
And that's not the only answer.
It's just the ideal answer.
And I see this at
play in companies
when somebody's poor
performance is blindingly
obvious to everyone,
the person tends
to opt out of a poor-performing
role pretty quickly.
When that doesn't
happen, you still
need somebody else that's making
sure you have the right people
in the right roles.
And Holacracy has a
special role in each circle
whose job it is to get the
right people in the right roles.
And when somebody's
not performing
and they need to
make a change, they
have the authority to do that.
Now that person can't
tell you what to do.
They can't tell you
how to do your role,
but they can find the right
people to give the autonomy to
in the role.
So there is still a
function of that as well.
AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm Tonya.
I have so many questions.
But a follow up
question on that.
So is there ever an issue with
having more like in group,
out group issues?
The way that we deal with
poor performers at Google
is very private.
So if you're a poor
performer, your teammates
don't know about that.
That's a private conversation
you have with your manager.
It's not like everyone at a
meetings is like you suck.
We're all talking about you.
So I can just see if
there's a system which
requires like large-- the
larger-- people in masses
behaving negatively
towards an individual
because they don't like how
that individual is performing,
can't that set things up for
the larger issues rather than
more private
conversations one on one?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah.
I think there would
be a terrible idea.
But that's not how
Holacracy does it.
So it provides
more transparency,
which makes it more obvious.
But that doesn't mean we
have discussions about it.
It's just more transparency
of who's doing what.
What are they getting
that every day?
That's just more transparent.
So it's not about
having discussions.
As a group, this guy sucks.
It's more about for that person
feeling like, oh, my god.
My performance is being watched.
Everyone can see it.
We don't need to have a
discussion when you know
that you just have visibility.
You can't hide
somewhere anymore.
Everything you do is transparent
for everyone else to see.
So that's the first sign.
You still do have one-on-one
private conversations
when somebody needs to
get removed from a role.
So there's that special role
I mentioned in each circle.
That person's not
going to call a meeting
about that with a group.
They're going to go talk
to the person and say, hey,
I think we got you
in the wrong role.
But firing someone
from a role is not
the same as firing
them from a company
when they fill 20 other roles,
maybe a different teams.
So I've been fired
from a role and thanked
the person firing
me because I knew
the role was a terrible fit.
And I was just holding the line
until we could get somebody
better in it.
And that's great.
So it's not a
public conversation
about performance at all.
It's still a very one-on-one
when that needs to happen.
AUDIENCE: So it sounds
like while there may not
be official
managers, there still
are people that can make
a call on whether or not
someone should be in a role?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Absolutely.
So think of it this way.
The functions that you typically
associate with a manager
get distributed out
into different roles
and different processes.
So there is still a role that
can decide who's in which role
and make changes.
But that person can't set
your comp-- can't fire you.
And they can remove you
from that one role, sure.
They can't tell you what to do.
They have no authority to
say, hey, I want you to do x.
Or you're responsible for y.
That happens through
other processes.
All they're doing
is looking at here
is the role we've
defined in governance.
Who's the right fit for it?
They get the right fit in.
And then that person has
autonomy until they jump in
and need to make a change.
So, yes, you still have
the functions of a manager.
They just get broken out
and distributed differently
and not centralized all in one
person with fuzzy boundaries.
And they can tell you
what to do and everything
else all at once.
AUDIENCE: My question
is how-- so it
seems to me like--
correct me if I'm
wrong-- that people that
have a certain skill
set take on these
particular roles.
So my question is how do
you develop and grow people
into other roles
or into other areas
that they want to go into?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah.
So the first line
of defense there
is it's everyone's
responsibility
to deal with their own growth.
And that's what many companies
rely largely on that.
Some go further and
say, and we want
to develop cool
internal training
programs to make it easier
for people to do that.
But the first ownership
rests with the person.
So if you want to grow
and develop in new areas.
Go shop around in
the role marketplace.
It's what we mean by there's
a space hundreds of roles
around the company.
Shop around.
Go find which ones
excite you and that you
might be able to start filling.
And see if you can find one
that's maybe 5% of your time,
but in a new area that forces
you to stretch and grow
and develop in that way.
And then take advantage of
whatever training programs
or whatever else
you can find or get.
And so it's a much more
organic growth path.
Instead of you grow
by climbing the rungs
on the hierarchical
ladder, it's more what
skills do you want to build?
Go find ways to
use those skills.
Go develop in lots
of different ways.
Whatever makes sense to you.
AUDIENCE: Hey, I
really appreciate
a lot of the philosophy
behind a lot of this.
I actually think at Google
we do a pretty decent job
at some of the
principles you recommend.
Of course, we're not perfect.
And we don't take it
quite to the same extreme.
But I think a lot of the things
you were talking about I've
seen work here pretty well.
One of the things we try to
do pretty thoroughly at Google
is use evidence and data
to support our management
decisions.
What evidence do you have
to suggest that this works?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: None.
So I say that jokingly,
although, there's truth to it.
It's too early.
We don't have any
good, hard data yet.
I can't wait till we do.
But frankly right now,
we have anecdotal data.
That said, Harvard
Business School
is doing the first serious
academic study on this.
The results are
not published yet.
Although the researcher
tells me they're
really cool and interesting.
So I can't wait till that's out.
They're setting
up a second study
they are looking at doing now.
So we will have
data at some point.
That said, this is
a really tough thing
to get that kind
of hard data on.
I have anecdotal data.
I have one company
said, our revenue
tripled after we
adopted Holacracy.
And that may be--
I'm sure it's true.
But how do you make
the causal link
between Holacracy and
revenue tripling, really?
Like did you launch
a new product?
Maybe that was--
So it's so hard
to make that link.
Instead, the data I tend
to encourage people to use.
And this is a form of data.
But it's a subjective form.
It's tune in to your
internal experience.
Is it easier or harder to use
your skills to drive change
in this company?
Because if everyone
involved is saying,
hey, we tried this
for a few months.
And what we notice is we can
use whatever tensions we sense.
We can get them
processed into something
more quickly with less obstacles
and less waste in the way.
That should translate into
better results as best we can.
And I think there's
a lot of wisdom
in that internal sensing.
So in the absence of actual
hard data that I trust,
that's the data point I tell
the people to use-- tune
in internally.
AUDIENCE: Leaders who
might be playing around
with the idea of
potentially doing this.
Following Zappos's transition,
it seemed like at one point
they had one foot in.
And now they have both feet in.
If Google were to do
something like this
with the version of the
constitution that you have now,
would you recommend all
or nothing approach?
Or could you do this in
small, meaningful ways?
BRIAN ROBERTSON: Yeah, so the
answer is a little nuanced.
I'd recommend very similar
to what Zappos did.
Their footsteps are
excellent ones to follow.
And they've done an amazing job.
What they did was first they
adopted all of Holacracy
in part of the company, which is
actually way better than trying
to adopt part of Holacracy
in all of the company.
So think of it like a
new sport like soccer.
You probably don't get
to play World Cup soccer
by starting and saying, all
right, let's master kicking
the ball and nothing else,
just kicking the ball.
And then the next thing.
Probably you get there
by playing soccer
at six-year-old level.
But you're still playing by
all the rules of the game.
So better to play by all
the rules of the game,
even in just one
team or department.
And Zappos started with that.
They started with
one department.
They played by all the
rules as best they could.
Now in terms of one foot
in one foot out though,
even playing by all
the rules doesn't
mean you've adopted everything
that you eventually will.
So to use another metaphor,
think of Holacracy
like an operating system.
It's a platform.
But it doesn't give you
all the apps you need.
So you guys know-- a good
platform goes a long way.
Apps matter a lot.
You need both.
Holacracy is just
the operating system.
The apps that you will
eventually build on top of it
are things like how
do we do compensation?
Holacracy constitution
does not tell you anything
about how to do compensation.
It tells you how to decide
how to do compensation,
but not what to do with it.
Nor does it cover firing,
budgeting, performance
management-- all these other
processes that you need.
Those are the apps of business.
And when you first start
running with this new operating
system, the best thing to do.
And this is what Zappos did.
Keep all your apps as they are.
Otherwise, you're just
changing too much all at once.
So bite off a piece at a time.
You do need to adopt the
full operating system.
You don't run half
Windows half Linux.
It doesn't work.
You're either on Windows.
You're on Linux.
You're on Mac OS X, whatever.
But you can do that.
When I first-- I switched from
Windows to Mac a few years ago.
And when I did, I
installed parallels.
And I ran most of my apps--
the same ones I did on Windows.
And that was a nice, graceful
path-- new operating system,
still used Quicken and
all these other apps
that were Windows-based.
And then eventually I
started upgrading my apps
and getting onto Mac apps.
And that was a much easier path.
So at the same time, you're
going to feel some pain.
And that's what Zappos
talked about with one foot
in, one foot out.
They were doing
all of holocracy--
first in part of the company--
then in all of the company.
But they were still
running backwards
compatible apps or barely
backwards compatible apps.
So their compensation
system was still
relying on what looked like
a management hierarchy.
That's tough when you're
running in this new mode
at the core of your
operating system that doesn't
use management hierarchy.
But your comp system still does.
It's hard to tell people own
your autonomy and your role.
The boss can't tell you
what to do when the boss can
set your pay or fire you,
which was the one foot in,
one foot out.
So companies when they adopt
Holacracy will start there.
But then, eventually, they will
feel some tension about that.
And then they start
working on the apps.
And they'll start
either designing
their own compensation
system that
is more Holacracy
compatible and doesn't
rely on a management hierarchy
and firing processes and all
these.
Or they'll go out
into the open source
community of apps
that are out there
and find one that
works for them.
So we have an approach
to compensation,
for example, that's very
Holacracy compatible.
It's also similar
to what Zappos does.
You can steal ours or
vary it or whatever.
AUDIENCE: One more question.
And actually, just
for the record,
we also at Google-- our
managers don't set our pay.
So I think there are some things
as Mary Kate was mentioning
that are already applied at
Google just we have something
in between a Holacractic version
and a feudal system version.
But one more question
about managers.
So I think back in the
day, Larry and Sergey
didn't like managers.
And they're like, well, let's
just try not having managers.
And they experimented with that.
And they found that
a lot of Googlers
really missed having managers.
And the thinking
here is if you have
a good manager,
that someone who's
in your corner-- they
are a people manager.
They're not like
a project manager.
So there's someone-- that's
a person whose job it
is to check in with you and say,
how are your projects going?
Let's talk about your
career development--
how do you feel about
well-being, work-life balance.
And so I just wonder
have you surveyed people
at these companies.
And have you found
that anyone really
misses having a more--
someone that's really
in their corner whose job
it is to care about them
and their careers, their work?
BRIAN ROBERTSON:
Yeah, definitely.
It is difficult to go
from having that-- having
that parent-like
figure, especially
if you've got a good one.
If you've got a bad
parent, that's different--
the same growing up.
It's really comforting to
live in your parents' house,
have them take care
of your needs--
know that you don't have
to brave the world of being
an adult yourself fully because
you've got a good parent.
And I think a lot
of our attempts
to develop organizations
today rely on trying
to get better parents.
In other words, let's get
better leaders, better managers
in place so that they're
good parents instead
of the bad manager parent.
And I think that can go.
To a large extent, that can
improve things-- that can help.
But at some point, if you really
want to take that next leap,
you need to move out
of home and learn
to be an adult that doesn't
need the caretaking protective
parent.
It doesn't mean you don't have
a relationship with your parent.
It doesn't mean you don't have
peers that can support you--
that you can lean on-- that are
on your side-- that are helping
you-- that are mentoring you.
You can have all of those
things without having
it be parent-child dynamic.
It can be adult to
adult and peer to peer.
So we have a role in my company.
It's called partner-partner.
So it's a partner's partner.
And that role is there as
a mentor for new people
as they come into
this organization.
So there's lots of ways that
you can support each other
as well as the informal
that always happens.
But there is that big shift from
parent-child dynamics to being
an adult out in the world.
And that is hard.
You see a lot of people that
are uncomfortable with that
at first.
And some of them don't want it
so much that they will leave.
You will lose some people when
you apply a system like this.
It's really hard.
Some people choose to stay
at home until their parents
literally kick them out.
And some people don't.
I know plenty of people
at are approaching 30
and still live at
home as a child
under their parents' roof.
So it's tough.
And yet there's also
so much that happens
in somebody's
internal development
even when they really do
leave behind the sheltering
comfort and safety of that
parent-like manager figure
and own their
authority, be an adult,
still get mentoring
and all that.
The other thing I'd say
is when most companies
attempt to throw out
managers, the biggest
mistake they make
is not replacing it
with an alternate structure.
And that is not what
Holacracy is about.
Some companies do that.
A few even make it
work like valve makes
that work actually pretty well.
Although they have a lot
of politics because there's
no other process.
So politics kind of rule.
But it's really hard.
Holacracy is not that.
It's more structured, not less.
It's just a completely
different kind of structure,
more like a city that lets
more of a dynamic order emerge.
So you've got to replace
it with something
or you don't get
a nice replacement
for management structure.
You get something that often
is a big step backwards
or at least a side step into
a completely chaotic space.
So replace it with something
would be my lesson.
MODERATOR: All right,
that's all the time we have.
So thank you so much, Brian.
BRIAN ROBERTSON:
Thanks everyone.
Appreciate it.
[APPLAUSE]
