Talk:Holacracy/Archives/2017

Misconceptions?

My feeling is that the misconceptions section of this article is ill-advised and POV. It is not Wikipedia's role to dispell misconceptions, so I see no reason for that to be a focus of the article. While facts may support statements of falsehood, these facts could be better presented directly, by stating what holacracy *is*. If there has been *notable* confusion on these points, then that should be mentioned with the supporting facts, but they should not be given undue weight, as they seem to be getting currently with the focus on them. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Claims regarding Zappos

The sentence "Lastly, Denning added that the voice of the customer was missing from the holacracy model, concluding that for agile and customer-focused companies such as Zappos, holacracy is a way to add administrative rigor, but that holacracy would not necessarily work well in an organization that did not already have agility and passion for the customer." tries to sneak in several promotional attributes for Zappo which are only partially backed by the given source (note: it has two pages) and are not neutral either. --Mopskatze (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I find that passage not an issue, as I see these criteria as fitting and "Zappos" is still the main reference point for Holacracy. However, I see your point. While I wasn't able to rephrase it in a more neutral way, I added an extra paragraph on more recent analysis that might be a good offset. Folletto (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)