Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site

Reply to Peer review

By rose Topic posted 02/15/2016

I can say that if you were using Holacracy, you'd likely have clear roles for Peer Reviewer and Writer and Editor and you'd have a clearly defined purpose and set of accountabilities to help guide the circumstance.  

If a Writer had an accountability of "Considering and incorporating feedback from Peer Reviewer" then it would eliminate some of the back and forth in deciding what is right for the situation. Perhaps Editor has final say. Or maybe the Writer has no accountability to incorporate, only to consider. Some of this dynamic is already at play in the situation you described, it is just much more informal and likely to change depending on mood and perceived authority. 

Basically what you're describing is what we call a tension. A tension can be taken to governance and tactical meetings to be resolved.  If the roles and accountabilities as they stand are giving rise to tensions, then they can be changed until you find the right solution.

In my opinion that's the smartest thing about Holacracy. The process allows a team to "home in" on the correct answer simply by processing tensions through a clearly defined process. 

Hope this helps!