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

I may not understand the issue well enough to offer this suggestion, but here goes . . . Policies should be thought of as universal in nature, meaning that when a particular issue requires special limiting action another mechanism is more appropriate. A policy is a pretty blunt instrument, whereas an accountability is a targeted scalpel. In this way, policies address general principles and accountabilities address specific practices. Again, I may be way off but this way of thinking helps me avoid the tendency of creating too many specialized rules that are then difficult to change later on. Also, if I understand correctly, role fillers can place policies on their roles for the purpose of informing others re. appropriate interactions in the role's domain. It strikes me that these types of role-specific limiting or granting "policies" are of a different class than circle-wide policies. If circle-wide policies concern themselves with ideas that apply equally to the entire circle (incl. all subs and subs of subs), then greater elegance and consideration could likely result.

 

My question is, do we see clearly how a sub-circle can challenge and remove/amend super-level policies that limit their ability to pursue purpose? For Likewise, our aim is that as long as the role fillers do not engage in behaviors that are immoral, illegal, unethical, imprudent, or come from a place of willful ignorance and inconsideration, then any action that seeks to pursue purpose should be encouraged...