Helpful words Tom, and much I agree with.
I suppose the experiences we see with holacracy are largely on someone at the top saying (honourably, I’m sure) “I don’t want to be a controlling dictator type of lead, however benevolent I might be, so let’s do holacracy please.” It’s an imposition still, of course it is. It is a direction. It’s inflicted freedom.
Yet, if the people in an organisation can collectively agree to launch into a holacracy form of self-management, then there’s an understanding they will be working in that “heavily” prescribed way, perhaps is in order to keep them from falling back into less-inclusive hierarchical ways.
Anyway, there’s a lot to think about with any form of alternative way of running things — sometimes, someone has to be the catalyst to something new and that often is a senior figure in an organisation.
I suppose in conclusion, we — as people — tend to be a lot more behind things we feel we’ve some influence, input and inclusion on.
ANYTHING imposed will have a much lower energising, commitment-creating, compliance-inducing impact on people.
Yet we see it all the time still: top-down imposed change; systemic rollout of management training with little or no consultation; and initiative after initiative with cliched posters of rowers and “we’re all in this together let’s hit that target” rhetoric.
And finally, you helped me come to this conclusion:
It seems that those who practice the least diversity of thought and approach, are those most critical of others who do.