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

Very interesting and thought-provoking stuff, thank you all.

The 'policies' in reference are intended as required actions of circle members of our anchor circle - not of all Partners in the part of the org using Holacracy (we're still hybrid and Holacracy still working its way through a predominantly volunteer organization).

With that understanding of Partner, the only possibilities that I've come up with are each pretty kludgy in different ways.

  1. New policy: If a Partner in MKP USA Support Services accepts a position as core circle member of the Lead Operating Circle, that Partner agrees to act in accordance with the LOC Guidelines as detailed here. [link to external doc combining the former policies re: daily messaging, absence calendar, initial response]
    1. This seems the easiest to enact but I don't know if it would in itself be NVGO - it has a 'conditional' but might not qualify as valid. AND, then after enacted I think we'd have to each re-accept our membership in the circle... and what if/when one Soul says no?  eek.
  2. New Role as LOC Member - seems simple but has yuck factor, Brian reacted like fingernails on the chalkboard at coach training. Role: LOC Member. Purpose: Reliable engagement and information about partner status and availability. Accountabilities: xxxx [reduxed versions of each of the 'required actions' buried in the NVGO policies.]  THEN: Lead Link assigns all current circle members to role LOC Member.
    1. Similarly 'easy' in some ways, but seems like an end-run to process somehow - and again couldn't a Soul accept a Role in the circle and be an official 'core circle member' but refuse to accept the LOC member role alongside? eek.
  3. Voluntary Group Agreement / Work Agreement / Employment Agreement / Volunteer Commitment. To somehow condense these required action into an opt-in agreement - can't easily say it'll become part of employment agreement, b/c LOC is mix of employee and volunteer. 
    1. This might work? I guess it might seem like a sort of retroactive legacy policy and I haven't figured out that time travel thing.  (when I do, I'll let you know yesterday). Being separate from Governance might make it slightly less 'governing the people instead of the property/asset' like in Brian's last comment?
  4. Completely scrap policies and requirements about these things. Find some other means to encourage/reward/bring about the intents - advance absence planning and recording, availability/status communication (daily) and rapid initial response.


At times, this whole 'fixing out crappy governance' thing seems a bit of a dog-and-pony show. With all the possible 'fixes' above, some Soul could refuse. And then we're back where we (and most humans) are at - with the difficulty / impossibility of changing the behavior of other humans.

I suppose that's really at the root of all of these controlling behaviors - that some Soul(s) might not do the thing(s) that are expected of them.  So a rule is made to point to and say 'look - there - you're supposed to _____ and didn't.'

Many of these arose due to poor personal/professional communication skills - or a lack of responsible planning regarding absence and travel - and the impact of this on rest of team or individuals within.

General comments about changing other humans (guffaw) appreciated - but specifically some votes from experts for 1, 2, 3 or 4 above or some other option not yet conceived.