The centuries old Grand Jury system closely resembles the new Holacracy management concept for organizations.
I listened with interest as the radio story described how online retailer Zappos.com implemented a new management structure called Holacracy into their organization. As I had just started my second year as a Placer County Grand Jury member I was surprised at the similarities between Holacracy and the structure of the California county Grand Jury system. I realized that Grand Juries in California have been using the Holacracy concept where people in the organization have multiple roles while working on different teams, without being micromanaged by a supervisor, for over 100 years.
Holacracy and the California Grand Jury
A succinct definition of this people empowered organizational structure called Holacracy comes directly from the Holacracy.com website –
Holacracy is a new way of running an organization that removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles, which can then be executed autonomously, without a micromanaging boss. The work is actually more structured than in a conventional company, just differently so. With Holacracy, there is a clear set of rules and processes for how a team breaks up its work, and defines its roles with clear responsibilities and expectations. – Holacracry: How it works
California Grand Juries organized in the 19th century
This definition could aptly apply to most Grand Juries in California. When I refer to a county Grand Jury I am specifically referencing the California Grand Jury system that is empaneled for a one year term to investigate various aspects of their respective county’s operations. The Grand Jury is appropriately referred as a citizen’s watchdog commission over county government in California. Most Grand Juries in California counties have nineteen Grand Jurors who apply to the Superior Court and are then chosen at random before the empanelment by a presiding judge.
The organization of the Grand Jury is broadly outlined in the California Grand Jury Association’s book The California Grand Jury System.
Once the grand jury has been selected and sworn in, the sole input of the court into a jury’s organization is the presiding or supervising judge’s selection of the foreperson. The foreperson is the official spokesperson of the jury and must remain available for 45 days following the jury’s dismissal to explain to the successor jury some details of that jury’s reports. Other than those two code-specified tasks, the foreperson has no more rights than are conferred by each jury’s own Rules of Procedure. The foreperson votes with all other jurors and is not a “tie-breaker.” Usually, the foreperson does not sit on an investigative committee, but will operate as a coordinator and assume the usual duties of a chairperson.
All other officers – foreperson pro tem, secretary, sergeant-at- arms, parliamentarian – whatever a particular jury decides – are selected by the jurors. This is usually done within the first few weeks after empanelment. The other, nearly simultaneous, task necessary for the jury to function is the adoption of its Rules of Procedure.
Most juries inherit a set of Rules of Procedure from the previous grand jury. However, PC §916 specifically requires each individual jury to adopt its own Rules of Procedure. As a practical matter, it may be the Rules that were used by a previous jury. However, the grand jury may decide to make some changes or even proceed with an entire rewrite. The court has no input into these Rules. The Rules will specify the officers and their duties, which committees may be formed, how committee chairs are selected, general rules of conduct (Robert’s Rules of Order, Revised is usually the fallback for non-specified matters), how grand jury mail is to be handled, the authority of the Editorial Committee, and everything else that is involved with a functioning body. – The California Grand Jury System
One year watch dog commission
Most Grand Juries, whose members are only empaneled for one year, will organize themselves into a series of committees to tackle the citizen complaints about a government dysfunction that are received. There might be committees for county administration, health and welfare, criminal justice, special districts, cities and an editorial committee to review the reports that are written. The committees are made up of five to seven jurors. Even though the committees do all the leg work of investigating complaints, interviewing witnesses, gathering documents and writing reports, the Grand Jury Full Panel must approve every report that is released to the public by a super majority vote.
The real similarities between Holacracy and the Grand Jury system are the roles the jurors accept within the Full Panel and different committees the serve on. One juror may be the committee chairperson of the Audit and Finance committee, serve as a secretary for the County Administration committee, and he or she might also accept the position of technology coordinator for the Full Panel. The Grand Jury members take on a variety of roles that best fit their interests and skills. No one juror has more power or a louder voice in the process than another. Everything is done by a super majority vote.
Multiple roles and teams
When I compare how Grand Jury members work within the system I am struck at how similar it is to general Holacracy employee role description –
In most companies each person has exactly one job description. That description is often imprecise, outdated, and irrelevant to their day-to-day work. In Holacracy, people have multiple roles, often on different teams, and those role descriptions are constantly updated by the team actually doing the work. This allows people a lot more freedom to express their creative talents, and the company can take advantage of those skills in a way it couldn’t before. Since roles are not directly tied to the people filling them, people can hand-off and pick-up new roles fairly easily. – Holacracy: Dynamic Roles Replace Static Job Descriptions
Democratic with equal power
Another significant overlap between the Grand Jury system and Holacracy is who has authority. Under Holacracy the authority is distributed to teams and roles. The decisions are made locally. This precisely describes how the committee structure works within Grand Juries. The committees and the members are empowered to follow through with an investigation, which has been approved by the Full Panel, in a manner they see fit. The committee members arrange interviews, review documents and write the report without the presiding judge or Foreperson looking over their collective shoulders.
Process trumps people and politics
However, I can’t emphasize enough that any Grand Jury committee’s final investigative reports are read and scrutinized, and ultimately voted upon, by the Full Panel. The Grand Jury speaks with one voice when the reports are issued. There are no dissenting opinions like you find with rulings at the U.S. Supreme Court. Everybody knows the rules in the Grand Jury. The process and procedures of an investigation, report writing, and approval trump any member’s experience or position. Holacracy is similar in that it advocates a transparent set of rules that must be followed even by the CEO’s. The whole point of the process being elevated over the personnel is to avoid the destabilizing and demoralizing actions of office politics.
People are people, regardless of the organizational structure
While I’ve never work for an organization that instituted a Holacracy management style, I can tell you that the egality and democratic structure of the Grand Jury does not vanquish all inter-personnel conflict. I raise my hand to admit that as a Grand Juror I have been too “head strong” in some opinions and conclusions. And I wouldn’t have been voted “Miss Congeniality” most of the time either. However, even when my perspective on an issue did not prevail, I took solace in the fact that the process was followed and the outcome was not steered by someone who had more pull with upper management. It is much easier to take ownership of, and defend, a product born of democratic and collective work than an arbitrary decision made by one person.
People are empowered within their roles
There are as many similarities as there are differences between the Grand Jury system and Holacracy. But fundamental to both organizational and management structures are people. People are what make organizations produce a product, a report, or a service. The goal of any organization is to produce the best product in the most efficient manner. The Grand Jury system validates the Holacracy concept that when you vest more authority in people and roles, with a clear set of rules and procedures, the entire organization is able to produce better products.
Grand Juries produce great reports under a Holacracy type system
Every year the fifty-eight counties of California produce hundreds of reports that improve the operation and governance of departments, cities and special districts within the respective counties. Many of these reports do not generate big headlines in the local media. Astonishingly, these in-depth investigations and reports are created by nineteen people, who are usually strangers to one another in the beginning, over the course of a single twelve month period. I’m convinced that it is the unique structure of the Grand Jury system in California which so closely resembles Holacracy, which enables such quality work to be produced in such a short amount of time.
Placer County 2014 – 2015 Final Report
Below are links to the final Placer County Grand Jury report for 2014 – 2015 and the individual reports that make up the entire document.
[wpfilebase tag=browser id=114 expanded=1 /]