Holacracy has software specifically for identifying roles, groups, and their structure and relationships.
Here's Holacracy's visualized and explorable "org chart" using their software, GlassFrog.
Holacracy's approach seems to clearly separate:
I very much appreciate the notion of "sensing dissonance between what is (current reality) and what could be (the purpose)."
Reminds me very much of the Dee Hock line of thinking:
"What if we set aside all discussion of as things were, as they are, and as they might become, and immersed ourselves in how they ought to be?"
Holacracy seems to be a more formalized, proprietary version of Sociocracy.
Unlike conventional top-down or progressive bottom-up approaches, it integrates the benefits of both without relying on parental heroic leaders. Everyone becomes a leader of their roles and a follower of others’, processing tensions with real authority and real responsibility, through dynamic governance and transparent operations.
Sense dissonance between what is (current reality) and what could be (the purpose): the feeling of a “tension”.
Unprocessed tension festers into frustration, burn-out, and disengagement. Tensions are only useful to the extent the organization can process them into meaningful change.
Regular governance meetings structure and evolve how the work gets done – everyone leaves with clarity on who is accountable for what, with what authority, and what constraints. These change dynamically with every meeting, based on the real tensions sensed while doing the work.
Governance clarity enables most work to get done by clear roles using clear authority, outside of painful meetings and group consensus-seeking.
On the ground, a team’s operational flow is synchronized by regular Tactical Meetings that facilitate rapid-fire triage of key issues. Anything in the way of getting the work done gets identified and processed into clear next-actions and target outcomes.
In Tactical Meetings: