Distributed Leadership: The Holacracy IDM Process – A Double-Edged Sword?

Good governance is only as effective as the decisions it enables. In organisations embracing distributed leadership, decision-making needs to be structured enough to create clarity but flexible enough to avoid bureaucracy. This is where Holacracy’s Integrative Decision-Making (IDM) process comes in.

IDM is designed to eliminate traditional hierarchy in decision-making and instead rely on structured discussions that ensure every voice is heard. But is it always the best approach?

While IDM provides a clear framework for governance decisions, it can also feel rigid and process-heavy. In this blog, I’ll break down what IDM is, its pros and cons, and whether it’s the right fit for your organisation.

Why Decision-Making In Distributed Leadership Is Crucial

Governance is all about creating clarity around how decisions are made. Without a defined process, teams can become paralysed by unclear authority, constant back-and-forth discussions, and slow progress.

A 2023 McKinsey report found that in high-performing organisations, leaders spend 80% of their time making high-quality decisions quickly—whereas in less effective companies, decision-making is slow, unclear, and often revisited multiple times.

This is where structured decision-making frameworks like Holacracy’s IDM process come into play. But just how effective is it?

What Is IDM? A Step-by-Step Look At Holacracy’s Integrative Decision-Making Process

Integrative Decision-Making (IDM) is a structured approach to governance decisions in Holacracy. Unlike traditional decision-making, which is often driven by consensus or leadership authority, IDM follows a set process designed to surface and integrate objections efficiently.

Here’s how it works:

Step 1: Present the Proposal

• A team member (the proposer) brings a governance-related proposal to the group.

• The proposal must be specific, actionable, and relevant to governance.

Step 2: Clarifying Questions

• Others in the group ask factual, clarifying questions to understand the proposal—not to critique it yet.

  
  

Step 3: Initial Reactions

• Each person shares their initial thoughts without debate or discussion.

  
  

Step 4: Raise Objections

• If anyone has an objection, it must meet the validity test: Does it highlight a risk to the organisation’s ability to work effectively?

  
  

Step 5: Integrate Objections

• Instead of rejecting a proposal due to objections, the group works to modify the proposal in a way that resolves concerns while still moving forward.

The goal of IDM is to create governance clarity while avoiding endless debates or consensus-driven stagnation. But while it works well in theory, it’s not always the best fit in practice.

The Pros of IDM:

Clarity, Structure & Distributed Leadership

For organisations looking to move away from top-down leadership, IDM offers some compelling advantages:

✅ Clear structure – Everyone follows the same process, reducing ambiguity.

✅ Distributed decision-making – Anyone can bring governance proposals, ensuring leadership is not concentrated at the top.

✅ Integrative approach – Instead of outright rejecting proposals, teams work to resolve concerns constructively.

✅ Avoids consensus deadlock – Decisions don’t need unanimous agreement, allowing progress while addressing key objections.

Research from Laloux’s “Reinventing Organizations” suggests that structured governance models like Holacracy can improve clarity and autonomy in self-managed teams—but only when applied effectively.

The Cons Of IDM:

Complexity, Rigidity & The Risks Of Getting Stuck

For all its benefits, IDM is not always easy to implement. Many organisations find that the process itself becomes a bottleneck rather than an enabler.

❌ Overly structured – The rigid step-by-step process can feel unnatural for teams used to more fluid discussions.

❌ Time-consuming – While IDM prevents endless debates, the structured process can still take up significant meeting time.

❌ Not always necessary – Some governance decisions are small and operational but still require an IDM-style process, slowing down progress.

❌ Can feel bureaucratic – Ironically, an approach designed to prevent bureaucracy can become bureaucratic itself, especially when some team members understand the rules better than others.

A 2022 study by the Harvard Business Review found that organisations that over-rely on structured governance processes risk becoming “process-heavy” and slow-moving—exactly what many businesses are trying to avoid

.

Book your free 45-minute consultation by contacting me here.

Alternatives & Adaptations: How To Modify IDM For Your Needs

If you like the core principles of IDM but find the full process too rigid, consider adapting it to fit your organisation’s needs.

🔹 Use IDM selectively – Not every decision needs the full process. Consider reserving it for major governance decisions, while smaller issues are handled more flexibly.

🔹 Simplify the process – Try a lighter version where steps like clarifying questions and reactions are merged into one discussion round.

🔹 Combine IDM with other methods – For example, pair IDM with advice-based decision-making, where key stakeholders provide input before the proposer refines their proposal.

🔹 Encourage autonomy within roles – Rather than putting every decision through IDM, trust role-holders to make decisions within their scope. This aligns with the principles of distributed leadership, ensuring governance supports, rather than restricts, autonomy.

Many of my clients have successfully blended IDM with more flexible decision-making approaches, allowing them to maintain clarity without getting stuck in process-heavy meetings. Learn more about my approach to working together here.

When To Use IDM & When To Explore More Flexible Approaches

Holacracy’s IDM process offers a clear, structured way to handle governance decisions—but it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. While IDM helps distribute decision-making and avoid endless debates, it can also feel rigid, time-consuming, and overly complex.

If your organisation values structured governance but needs flexibility, consider:

✅ Using IDM selectively for key governance decisions

✅ Adapting the process to make it more efficient

✅ Combining IDM with other decision-making approaches

✅ Empowering individuals to make governance decisions within their roles

Ultimately, governance should serve the organisation—not slow it down. The key to effective distributed leadership is striking the right balance between clarity and adaptability.

If you need help designing governance processes that work for your organisation, I’d love to help. Find out more about my approach to working together here, or see what my clients have said here.

Need guidance on governance and decision-making? Get in touch with me here to explore the best approach for your team.