One day a colleague came to me and asked when should their (bizdev) circle members talk about all those customer and market news they have discovered if there is no place for that in the governance and the tactical meeting agenda.
Well, I didn't have a ready answer. I asked about his tension and his suggestion to resolve it, and it became clear that they needed a... tadaaam... meeting to share information.
It became clear for me that day that holacratic meetings are primarily for collective decision making. Tactical meetings help the transformation of tensions to activity. Governance meetings help to transform tensions to conscious forms of cooperation. And you may hold several other meetings to:
- Share information, discuss learnings from the customer, the market or your field
- Brainstorm, capture ideas
- Analyze, build strategy
- Interview, coach, train, etc...
For me these meetings seem to be primarily for channeling information among the participants. These are conversations and definitely not decision making forums.
If a circle works in a constantly changing environment the members will have a higher need to share updates. Sales or product development will need more meetings than accounting where policies mostly cover the flow of information.
From another point of view if you have tensions based on risks, you better evolve them to policies. If you find tensions based on loosing opportunities, you may suggest more intense communication.
One thing is for sure. Once you tried holacratic meetings you will find a healthy need to have every meeting facilitated by "someone", decisions captured by "someone" (like a secretary). I have written "someone", because both the facilitator and the secretary have a specific mission that is related to decisions made in the circle.