In 2017, the Quality and Progress Department, which is part of the Transformation Department within the HR Department of Engie Cofely, was assigned a new scope of activities. They now operate not only at the company's national headquarters but also across the entire territory, within different branches. To anticipate this additional activity, the team, which has a strong inclination for innovation and new organizational methods, decided to experiment with adaptive governance, heavily inspired by holacracy.
A young team open to experimenting with new models
The team, consisting of about twenty internal consultants, has always been a young, dynamic, and innovation-oriented team. They had been practicing shared decision-making for a few years already, where decisions were made unanimously.
However, in 2017, they faced a new scope. Issues multiplied without an increase in staff. They quickly realized that optimizing their operation was necessary. They increasingly saw the drawbacks of their way of working: reaching a consensus required numerous meetings and thus consumed time they no longer had. Another challenge was knowing who does what: with a 30% turnover, the sharing of responsibilities and topics was not clear. And when combining these two challenges, such as deciding unanimously to hire a new recruit, one can imagine the burden and delays it causes.
As luck would have it, they unexpectedly met consultants who were assisting teams in implementing participative governance, heavily inspired by holacracy, which accelerated their reflection. The idea quickly gained traction, and in May 2017, the team decided to embark on this new adventure.
3 days to transform: ready, set, go!
The entire team was eager to test this new model, driven by curiosity and the desire to experiment with a different organization within a large group. They took three days collectively to delve deeply into adaptive governance and to restructure everything. The first step was to define their purpose and then establish the roles and accountabilities of each to fulfill it.
"To serve the collective performance of our company, support internal organizations in their transformation and continuous improvement process, through a transversal, challenging, and methodical approach" - The team's purpose
In 2017, the Quality and Progress Department, which is part of the Transformation Department within the HR Department of Engie Cofely, was assigned a new scope of activities. They now operate not only at the company's national headquarters but also across the entire territory, within different branches. To anticipate this additional activity, the team, which has a strong inclination for innovation and new organizational methods, decided to experiment with adaptive governance, heavily inspired by holacracy.
A young team open to experimenting with new models
The team, consisting of about twenty internal consultants, has always been a young, dynamic, and innovation-oriented team. They had been practicing shared decision-making for a few years already, where decisions were made unanimously.
However, in 2017, they faced a new scope. Issues multiplied without an increase in staff. They quickly realized that optimizing their operation was necessary. They increasingly saw the drawbacks of their way of working: reaching a consensus required numerous meetings and thus consumed time they no longer had. Another challenge was knowing who does what: with a 30% turnover, the sharing of responsibilities and topics was not clear. And when combining these two challenges, such as deciding unanimously to hire a new recruit, one can imagine the burden and delays it causes.
As luck would have it, they unexpectedly met consultants who were assisting teams in implementing participative governance, heavily inspired by holacracy, which accelerated their reflection. The idea quickly gained traction, and in May 2017, the team decided to embark on this new adventure.
3 days to transform: ready, set, go!
The entire team was eager to test this new model, driven by curiosity and the desire to experiment with a different organization within a large group. They took three days collectively to delve deeply into adaptive governance and to restructure everything. The first step was to define their purpose and then establish the roles and accountabilities of each to fulfill it.
"To serve the collective performance of our company, support internal organizations in their transformation and continuous improvement process, through a transversal, challenging, and methodical approach" - The team's purpose
Several circles were then identified. The three managers lead a circle each and assume the holacratic role of "link" to, guess what, link between their circle and the General circle. The General circle comprises the links from all circles and Marion. Marion holds several roles: she is the Happiness Team Officer in the People circle but also acts as a double-link: she represents the entire team in the General circle, somewhat like if there were a "team" circle of which she is the lead/link.
The links appoint team members to roles and ensure the alignment of individuals and roles within their own circle. Of course, as their culture was already very consultative, these appointments are discussed and not imposed!
The three established circles are as follows:
- People circle: it includes HR roles (recruitment, skills development, etc.), led by Anthony
- Projects Portfolio circle: it manages the team's project portfolio
- Outreach circle, created a bit later: Léa, who we also interviewed, holds the vigilance role in it.
Léa confided that the longest step was not creating the circles or even the appointments, but defining the purpose. Naturally, it must suit everyone and be broad and clear enough to serve as a foundation!
How does it work on a daily basis?
Each circle holds an operational meeting ("triage meeting") every week. The agenda for this meeting is standardized:
- Inclusion round. For the Outreach circle, for example, five rounds are made to answer five questions (one of them being: "is there an alert about the team's morale? yes/no")
- Review of 5 circle KPIs
- News update from each role
- Identification of any tensions
- Review of next steps
Governance meetings are held approximately every six weeks, although in practice, each circle organizes it as needed. These meetings allow for stepping back on role and accountability sharing and making any necessary adjustments. Strategic meetings, on the other hand, occur every six months.
All these meetings require two roles, rotating every 3 months: the facilitator facilitates the exchange and distributes the speaking turns. The scribe takes notes. Whether this is a good situation for the scribe or not, that wasn't asked. Something to explore.
Apart from these meetings, characteristic of holacratic practice and dedicated to decision-making, highly cadenced and structured, there are also ad hoc meetings, allowing for more spontaneity.
While this functioning is well structured, it is not rigid: if one day Léa no longer wants to do surveillance, she would discuss it with her circle and simply change roles. Things still happen by feeling, naturally.
Given that each team member is an internal consultant, their roles are not intended to be full-time positions. The amount of time they dedicate to their roles varies. For example, Anthony is in charge of the People circle and also takes on the budget role. He devotes one day a week to these roles, but most of the team does not dedicate as much time to their roles.
How to manage in this model? As the head of a horizontal team attached to a hierarchical company, Amelia (team manager) remains the dedicated interlocutor of the CEO. She leads the General circle and appoints associated roles. However, she completely delegates missions and accountabilities to the circle roles. The team is thus hierarchically attached to Amelia, and the roles animate and steer their circle horizontally.
2 years later: what impacts on the team and its ecosystem?
For Léa and Anthony, transitioning to holacracy allowed them to professionalize. They standardized their methods, decision-making became faster and easier, and everyone was made accountable. Work is now better monitored, with fewer information losses.
We have gained in professionalism - Léa Le Bourhis
According to them, transitioning to holacracy also enriched their service offering. Client satisfaction increased while turnover decreased, probably due to greater skill development among team members.
We are more efficient today with this organization than we were yesterday - Anthony Gracia
What about the environment of this team, operating within one of France's largest groups? Although this transformation took place discreetly at first, the hierarchy is not resistant to this organization today. This model sparks curiosity internally: more and more managers within Engie are questioning the team about this method.
Despite this very positive assessment, Léa would not blindly recommend this system to anyone. It requires time, discipline, and rigor. And there is always the risk of spending too much time on themselves rather than delivering to clients. For her, as a prerequisite, there must be a convinced manager willing to set aside some of their authority, and a team already accustomed to the idea that the boss is not the only one to give their opinion.
Moreover, if it works so well for them, it is probably because Amelia was selected to lead the team: she seemed to fit the ideal manager profile presented by the team to the hierarchy to ensure that the initially present culture would be preserved.
