Holacracy, a self-management practice for running purpose-driven, responsive companies, has been criticised for not being safe enough to try. Critics argue it lacks psychological safety, a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. They believe Holacracy’s emphasis on the organisation’s purpose over individual needs can lead to a neglect of employees’ psychological safety.
Despite this, defenders of Holacracy argue that it offers psychological safety through its constitution and governance processes. They suggest that the constitution provides a ‘safe space’ by clearly defining roles and responsibilities, while the governance process allows for open discussions and changes to the system.
Yet, critics counter that the constitution can be manipulated by those in power, leading to a lack of safety. They also claim that the governance process can be intimidating for some, thereby creating an unsafe environment.
Holacracy’s focus on roles rather than people has also been criticised. This focus can lead to individuals feeling disposable, which can negatively impact their psychological safety.
In conclusion, while Holacracy has its defenders, there are serious concerns about its impact on psychological safety. The debate continues over whether it is truly safe enough to try.
Go to source article: https://pazifika.com/2016/04/03/holacracy-not-safe-enough-to-try/