Counter-argument: the justification given for Holacracy is that generally in life groupings of people aren't structured in that way. The example they give is that in a city there are no bosses, everyone choses a career, looks for work, finds accomodation, etc, independently. The mayor isn't your boss. This is of course the foundation of capitalism: free agents.
"Boss" is often too restrictive as a word. You can call it "leaders", "spiritual guides", "representatives", whatever, but they exist in a hierarchy.
Even though the individual is the indivisible element of a society, we as individuals inevitably take part in different organisations (financial, political, religious). In each of these more or less spontaneous organisations we assume a role and in some of these roles we will make decisions for several people.
The mayor is the elected leader, chosen by a majority, to make these decisions for us in a certain scope. You can't challenge his decisions on your own. If you don't like them, you either try to have someone else elected the next time or move elsewhere.
If you are catholic, the pope is also not our "boss", but boy does he have the power, legitimacy and support to influence a lot of people in arguably one of the most successful organisations to ever exist.
Cooperation is one of the pillars of markets, because markets are based on exchange. A buyer and seller cooperate to make an exchange.
Coase's question was: why don't we see the free market structure that linear algebra predicts? Why do firms exist?
His answer was fairly insightful. Markets impose search and transaction costs. To buy something from a market, you must search it for a seller and come to terms.
Inside a firm, that search cost may well be zero. Need HR services? Call HR. No need to look for a provider, negotiate a contract and so on. Need IT? Ring the support department. No need to weigh the virtues of IBM vs HP vs the corner store.
But sometimes it's the other way around. Need pens? In some companies the process is so onerous that you'll just go to the local store and buy your own.
That boundary moves around (consider the impact of IT, for example), but it's always there. If search and transaction costs fall to zero, the firm would in theory become unnecessary.
Comparing a market -- or a city -- to a firm is a mistake, because they are different structures emerging from different pressures on the same free agents.
I could point to the 20.000 years of human history and challenge you to find the opposite: a single completely flat organisation/enterprise with more than one individual, that for a non trivial amount of time exhibited progress, growth and financial success. I can't think of one.
Challenge me, to come up with something, why? You were the one doing the assertion, so you should be prepared to be challenged and answer, not challenging back.
You said that a given notion/idea is against human nature; the burden of proof is yours. Do you have any scientific support for that claim? What definition of "human nature" are you following? Even relating to the very limited historical accounts you were trying to assess, how can you be sure it's "human nature", not "human culture"?
I'm sure you're thorough and rigorous in your field of expertise, and don't accept "claims" blindly. I'm just asking for the same standards in other subjects. No need to be frivolous just because the subject is human behaviour.
I was expressing my opinion, as it should be clear from my comment and the challenge to find a counter-example to my argument is called proof by contradiction.
There's nothing in your statement "it is against human nature" that would imply that it was just an expression of your opinion. You stated it as clearly as possible, yet you have no basis for this. It's very sad to see the standards drop so low when the discussion regards human behaviour; it borders on religious faith. People believe X regarding human behaviour in the same way other people believe in baby jesus.
> the challenge to find a counter-example to my argument is called proof by contradiction.
I don't think "proof by contradiction" means what you are "expecting", really. Look it up. You'll see why and how fallible it would be as a method for human and social sciences.
I've read "On Human Nature" (not any of the others, though). I'd say that there's nothing there which would imply that ideas proposed in the link shared by the OP are "against human nature".