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

Hi Fred,

 

If you fill a role in a sub-circle and want to process a tension that affects a role in another circle “at the same level as yours”, for instance let's say you want to expect something from this other role, than you need to go to the Rep Link and the Rep Link will bring it to the Super-Circle and propose in a governance to add an accountability on the sub-circle (the sub-circle is seen just as a role in the super-circle). Once you've done that, the Lead Link of that sub-circle will take care of the accountability and break it down into one or more roles within its sub-circle. That's the way the holarchy works. It is none of your business whether the Lead Link add that accountability to the role X or Y, it's up to them to figure out that. What you want to make sure however is that the sub-circle itself is accountable for what've asked. If you go directly to the Lead Link of the sub-circle and propose to add an accountability on one of the role of “its” circle, you lose the power of holarchy and the organization misses a chance to evolve because they can remove that accountability at any time. Whereas, if you add the accountability on the entire sub-circle, you make sure that they cannot remove it as they wish, they have to go to the super-circle governance meeting where you have both your Lead Link and Rep Link that can object. Therefore, your circle can object and you can make sure your tension will still be integrate.

Is that clear? It is a bit theoretical I must admit..