I actually don't like the way they've defined lead link in Holacracy. It does feel too manager-like because they have the ability to create roles or remove people from roles.
We had this as a stepping stone at GrantTree, in our previous implementation of holarchy (note: that's not the same as holacracy, it's just one subset of holacracy that deals with how to organise work without organising people) but since then, we got rid of that managerial aspect (and also of the word "lead", which is needlessly managerial).
The links at GrantTree now do just one thing: they represent the circle they're a link of in the meetings of the supercircle.
This is just one role among many for the person, and it has absolutely zero managerial authority. It's an administrative and communications role. We're still in the early days of it, but the intention is that the person in that role will be rotated out every 3 months or so, to make sure the role doesn't turn into a manager role inadvertently (but at the moment there's no sign that it will).
A lead link can appoint people to roles, but the people have autonomy in that role. A manager has the authority to both appoint roles and micromanage execution.
Also, there is a parallel to lead link called rep link who is appointed by the lead link's circle to check against bad decisions/behavior by the lead link.
Another way to look at 'micromanage execution' is as 'support and mentoring in the role' based on honest feedback on perceived performance. How do people get support for challenges?
Providing support and feedback is a role responsibility. There can be as many responsibilities and roles to fulfill them as the team needs. If a circle member has a need for support and they are not getting it, it gets brought up at a tension meeting and quickly resolved (new responsibility assigned, role assigned, person's role changed, whatever's needed.)
Edit: I forgot to add that anyone who perceives a person is not receiving support for their responsibility can raise a tension. It's not just the manager's and the employee's job.
"If a circle member has a need for support and they are not getting it..."
How does circle member recognise that they need support? What indicators/who provides feedback?
My (limited) experience as a manager was mainly about nurture/support/challenge of colleagues. We could not allow them to fail/fail to 'ask' for support because of implications for clients (we did not sell people shoes).
The tension meeting makes it hard to avoid asking for support because it's so easy for people to bring up small problems as they're noticed and get quick resolution. Also, responsibilities are worded as objectively and measurably as possible (like good KPIs) to increase transparency into how people are doing in their roles. If a circle in an org like yours needs to avoid showing weaknesses to clients and to suss out problems before they're noticeable, they would be able to define those as responsibilities and assign them to the right people.
That said, I think one of the bets holocracy makes is that a group of people with a better understanding of their responsibilities and who receive quicker, clearer feedback will naturally be more proactive about problems. A circle is pretty unlikely to assign themselves the kinds of restrictive processing and reporting that are traditionally used to control interaction with clients in organizations that don't have perfectly reliable people. But in the short term, the control method would probably have more consistent results and that is not acceptable to every organization.
"I think one of the bets holocracy makes is that a group of people with a better understanding of their responsibilities and who receive quicker, clearer feedback will naturally be more proactive about problems."
Who provides the feedback? Based on what credentials? Explain why that person not a manager.
Tensions, which are problems or issues or defects, are provided by anyone who notices.
In addition to that, some roles may have responsibilities to provide particular support and feedback. For example, in a team of developers, a developer who has a code reviewer role may have the responsibility of providing feedback on others' code.
Other kinds of feedback-providing responsibilities could be proofreading, listening to sales calls, QA on manufactured items, feedback on negotiations, etc. Anyone could be assigned these roles/responsibilities.
Traditional managers usually see these responsibilities as their job and other employees don't easily get involved in the manager-employee feedback relationship.
"Tensions, which are problems or issues or defects, are provided by anyone who notices."
Interesting but 'deficit model' approach. No mentoring available for performance that does not cause what you define to be a 'tension' but that could be improved with little effort. I'm thinking of double-loop learning (Argyris) as opposed to single-loop learning which I interpret as covering proof reading/QA/Sales call monitoring.
Yes, I haven't seen anything requiring scrutinizing assumptions as a core role/responsibility, so it would have to be something the organization wants to do. I do think the model empowers employees to question assumptions very nicely once it is their responsibility, though.
If they also have the authority to remove people from roles, how do they not also have the authority to micromanage execution, at least not indirectly?
They would have to go out of their way to do it. It would be brought up as a tension and if people were unhappy with the link lead, the rep lead would bring it up to the link lead's higher-up circle (rep lead is a circle-elected peer of the link lead.)
So, instead of having direct authority to micromanage, they only have indirect possibility of micromanaging and there are explicit checks built in to prevent it.
It's essentially "Explain it like I'm 5", which in this case can help discern between an interesting corporate experiment and PR bullshit.
No one wants to get halfway through an article claiming the former and ending up being the latter. If Zappos has a unique take on how to replace middle management, let's all hear it.
>The ability or inability to describe an idea in simple terms has no relation to the validity of the idea.
Maybe not in physics, but in politics and business it does - those fields like to seem more complex than they are so they fake it, which is much more difficult to do with simple language.
"Just say no to drugs" - simple terms. Is it a valid social policy given other ways to reduce drug use?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Simple terms. Does it lead to a workable political system?
"Three-strikes law". Simple idea. Does it lead to good social policy?
"Zero tolerance." Another simple idea. Does it lead to good social policy?
"White man's burden." Does it justify the American colonization of the Philippines and other countries?
"Curse and mark of Cain" as used by many religious groups to explain the lower social standing of those with black skin. Valid idea?
"Free silver at a ratio of 16 to 1" - one of the famous slogans of the Populist movement in the US in the late 1800s. Easy to say. Good economic policy?
Or do you prefer "Bad money drives out good" - Gresham's Law - as your economic policy?
Gersham's law is actually fairly valid, as well as being simple. The difference is that it isn't a statement of intent, it's a description of an inevitability.
My point was that "A therefore B" isn't useful if the noise level is so high that it can't be used to make a meaningful decision.
Otherwise the advice reduces to "don't trust long explanations". But if 1% of long explanations are valid and 2% of short ones are valid, then the statement is both true, and worthless as a way to detect validity.
I disagree. I think we have more understanding of the physical world (physics) then we do the complex human interactions that make up society (politics) and the economy (business). To me the fact the latter fields are not well described alludes the them being more complex.
Everything can be initially described by an elevator pitch. That's never the whole explanation, it's just a sense that there's something in the idea (or not), and allows the listener to decide whether it's worth pursuing the long discussion.
It's not a guaranteed indicator, but the chances are better that a good elevator pitch is good because it describes something good.
After you've done that, please explain in one sentence with fewer than 20 words how a determinant is a measure of fullness-of-span in n-dimensional space. I know that it is, but I've never understood the intuition.
(Someone who endorses this structure) explain to me in one sentence with fewer than 20 words how a 'lead link' is not the same role as a 'manager'.