We are in the Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industry, specifically food, and we have our food manufacturing and food safety side.
I assume that your question stems from the doubt that people who have worked well only under very tight supervision and carrots and sticks environment can all of a sudden work well in a self managed organization.
In our company we do it really2 gradually. There is almost no difference in the actual day to day operations.
The difference is in the process of deciding what role should do what, and what policy needs to be put in place, which is through governance where the workers have to have no objection also to a proposal, and they can also propose changes directly in governance.
More than likely you'll have their former supervisor as the Lead Link of the circle and he will be participating in the same governance meetings. At the very early stages, if you're worried that the workers will then propose things that are dangerous, you'll have the supervisor to object to the proposal and go to integration. Thus, danger avoided
in my experience, though, the workers are so used to the old paradigm that they just have no proposals and never objected at the very early implementation stage.
We, however, never pushed the manufacturing circle to adopt Holacracy immediately. It's whenever they are ready, after seeing the other circles implement it.
Even, when they did implement Holacracy in their groups, it was not 100% compliant I hope this is not a bad advice.. In practice, their supervisor still acted somewhat like a supervisor, but at least they had started going through governance and can propose clarification of roles if they need to. We just hoped that through the modeling of other circles and constant reminder and training whenever we can that they will gradually move towards more of full Holacracy/Self Managed implementation.
Oh, we also adopted the advocacy app, where each person now has at least three advocates, one is their Lead, and the two others are of theor choice. These advocates have to vote to make changes to salary or to terminate theor advocatee. This is meant to reduce the use of compensation or termination threat from the former supervisors. We hoped that this will make it safer for the workers to propose and object when they are ready.
We still have policies for "dishing out" penalties when there is violations, but the penalties are given by the advocates, again after a period of investigation and depends on the majority vote of the advocates.
I guess it boils down to "take it slow" when you are unsure, and adopt gradually.
Again, this is just our approach, and may conflict completely with other people's advice