The idea that having focus on long-range, broad-scope problems is intimately tied to authority is a typical assumption of traditional heirarchies, but there's no reason it has to be true in holacracies.
It has nothing to do with whether you call the direction "strategic", "next quarter" or "tactical". If you have the authority to set the direction at all you're the one (or few) in charge.
We prefer these types of direction to be long-term if only to avoid having a business do its own random walk through the markets, but don't confuse scope with authority.
Comments
Sweet. Now we know who's actually in charge, it's whoever is a member of that circle. That wasn't so hard.
The idea that having focus on long-range, broad-scope problems is intimately tied to authority is a typical assumption of traditional heirarchies, but there's no reason it has to be true in holacracies.
It has nothing to do with whether you call the direction "strategic", "next quarter" or "tactical". If you have the authority to set the direction at all you're the one (or few) in charge.
We prefer these types of direction to be long-term if only to avoid having a business do its own random walk through the markets, but don't confuse scope with authority.