Your comment presupposes that managers are somehow worthy of more pay by virtue of their position. I've worked enough jobs to know that this is just not universally true. I see no reason why holacracy can't still have organizers and leaders without a permanent division between management and non-management. I've known plenty of "leadership level" people who don't contribute much and could be eliminated without pain for anyone else. Do they really deserve more than the true workhorse(s) of the team, who have difficulty getting promoted, because their shoes are hard to fill? I think not.