In the The Five Dysfunctions of a Team book, I found a lot of common values with holacracy, except for one that I think is different, Fear of conflict.
Fear of conflict is the second dysfunction and the book says a team would be better of to have more productive conflicts and even a leader should "stir" more conflict. On contrary, I often raise tension to be processed in governance when I am involved in the meeting after meeting debating over a particular operational strategy. Which in that case, I would ask, whose accountability is it , do we have any role for this kind of decision? and if there is one, we let him to take the decision, and if not, we create the role, assign people before letting him/her to decide.
What do you guys think about this? Am I wrong to think that holacracy actually bias towards less operational conflict, and whenever we found such conflict we need to resolve it quickly by altering circle's governance?