Re:How a Radical Shift to "Self-Management" Left Zappos Reeling
by kevinmchugh on Monday March 07, 2016 @11:35AM
(#11239790)
there's definitely a migration period where the people who originally held power continue to hold it. One of their tasks is delineate those powers and delegate as appropriate. Certainly a founder or formerly c-level executive will continue to hold lots of power. Holacracy asks/empowers participants to admit that there are informal groups, cliques, cabals, who hold lots of cachet and at least document their existence.
I worked in a partially "holacratic" organization for about six months, and had a lot of good experiences, but remain something of a skeptic. Certainly it's problematic that the companies most likely to adopt it are already in the bad state that necessitates a major shake-up. I think a lot of the criticism of Zappos by outsiders and message-board nerds is misguided or ignorant, but they seem to be in a bad spot no matter what.
Re:How a Radical Shift to "Self-Management" Left Zappos Reeling
by Spooky23 on Monday March 07, 2016 @01:29PM
(#11240522)
It doesn't. Power matters.
Just as Lenin, et al had to maintain a repressive aristocracy during the "transition period" in the journey to the dictatorship of the proletariat, there's always an incentive to keep the transition period a little longer.
Is holacracy's scope confined, where there are still execs above it that can make those decisions? Were these decisions actually decided "holacratically", meaning my expectations of making it difficult to do such sweeping changes in such a system are wrong? etc.
Again, let me emphasize, honest questions. I clearly have preconceptions in those questions but I'm trying to avoid opinions, as I don't have enough data. (And I am suspicious of the tone of the article, admittedly. But still, honest questions.)