« Holacracy doesn’t work for large companies. » « Holacracy is a rigid system with no room for customization. »

Holacracy is often misunderstood, leading to numerous misconceptions. This article will debunk ten common myths about Holacracy and show how it could benefit your team.

1. Holacracy Only Works for Small Businesses

Holacracy is a versatile governance system that works at any scale. Companies adopting it range from small teams of two (like SAS Ivolve in France) to organizations with over 1,500 employees (like Zappos in the U.S.).

For large organizations, Holacracy provides a fractal structure by dividing the company into circles of up to 15 people, each with clearly defined roles. This makes it easy to understand who does what, regardless of company size.

2. Holacracy Doesn’t Work for Small Teams

Holacracy works even for teams of two. It clarifies responsibilities by defining roles, ensuring everyone understands their contributions. This explicit structure prevents oversight and provides a clear reference in case of absence.

3. Holacracy is a Rigid, One-Size-Fits-All System

Yes, Holacracy is based on a constitution that sets the rules of governance. However, the way these rules are applied is highly customizable. Think of Holacracy as an operating system—you can install whatever programs you need to make it work for your business.

While the framework remains consistent, every organization tailors it to fit their specific needs. If a company modifies the constitution itself, though, it’s no longer practicing Holacracy.

4. Holacracy Requires Consensus on Every Decision

Not true! In fact, Holacracy is designed to improve efficiency by distributing authority to roles. Decisions are made within defined responsibilities, not by group consensus.
The only time collective decision-making occurs is during governance meetings, where roles and responsibilities are defined. Even then, the process is structured to avoid endless debate.

5. There Are No Managers in Holacracy

Holacracy doesn’t eliminate leadership; it redistributes it. Instead of traditional management, leadership is spread across defined roles.

For example:

• Circle Leads set strategies and priorities.
• Secretaries interpret governance rules.
• Facilitators help teams resolve issues and ensure smooth meetings.
• Role assignments are handled through governance processes rather than managerial oversight.

If an organization still wants to maintain a “manager” role, Holacracy allows it—as long as the responsibilities of that role are clearly defined.

6. Holacracy Creates More Stress

Holacracy itself doesn’t create stress—traditional workplace structures do! While transitioning to a new system can feel challenging at first, Holacracy actually reduces stress in the long run by clarifying responsibilities and removing bureaucratic bottlenecks.
With no unnecessary approvals or reporting hierarchies, employees have more autonomy and flexibility in their work.

7. Any Employee Can Block Decisions

No, Holacracy doesn’t allow individuals to unilaterally block progress. Instead, it follows an integrative decision-making process. When someone raises an objection, it must be grounded in a concrete risk to the organization, not personal preference.
Facilitators help refine objections, ensuring they are relevant before integrating feedback into decisions. This keeps the process efficient while allowing concerns to be addressed.

8. Holacracy Increases Meeting Time

Holacracy meetings are structured for efficiency. Regular tactical and governance meetings focus only on necessary topics, with predefined roles and clear decision-making processes.

Over time, as governance stabilizes, the number of meetings often decreases because teams operate with greater autonomy and clarity.

9. Holacracy is Based on Consent-Based Decision Making

Holacracy is often confused with Sociocracy, which uses consent-based decision-making. Instead, Holacracy relies on integrative decision-making, which prioritizes organizational needs over personal preferences.

Objections are only considered valid if they highlight a clear risk to the organization, ensuring decisions aren’t stalled by personal concerns.

10. Holacracy is Risky Because You Can’t Track Performance

Holacracy increases transparency. While it eliminates traditional top-down monitoring, it requires self-accountability and real-time information sharing. Each role has defined responsibilities and shares progress openly.

Instead of managers tracking work, the system ensures that projects remain visible and priorities are adjusted collectively. This fosters a culture of responsibility without micromanagement.

Holacracy challenges traditional management, but it isn’t the chaotic or rigid system some believe it to be. By debunking these common myths, we hope to show how Holacracy can create clearer roles, more autonomy, and greater efficiency.

Curious to learn more? Let’s talk at Sémawé—we’d love to hear your perspective!