Well, for starters, if we are talking about private business, then a holacratic form of governance seems like a ginormous waste of money to me. Were I to put myself in the shoes of a small business owner—then I would want to control how and where my resources are spent. I can put people in charge of various departments and give them leeway (or empowerment) to self-govern and hire and fire if I want to.

However, a business owner does not want this kind of power to fall into the hands of just anyone because it's ripe for abuse, most especially in the present cancel culture where people are scrutinized for not having the "correct worldview." As an employer, the only thing I care about is how well someone does their job. I don't care if they fit in unless it becomes an obnoxious problem. But what I would care about is rudderless individuals with non-descript positions who get to define their position within the company.

If I hired them, I hired them to do a specific job. If I hired them, they are good at doing that specific job. If I hired them, they do not get to pick their job, especially if they are getting paid at my expense. This holocracy mumbo jumbo seems like something for organizations that have grown so big that they're already naturally disorganized. There are so many business organizations out that are spending a veritable fortune conducting pointless meetings and attempting to gaslight their employees with Delphi methods when they don't need to.

The boss is called the boss for a reason, and it's because you're there at his/her pleasure. Serving him or her on their dime. Not everyone can run a successful business and make the right decisions, but the free market sorts that out. Business leaders who fail will lose, while those who succeed will win.