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

[@mention:449411339497350002] This is very interesting, with inexperienced people  I find it  very hard to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Constitution in "present proposal", and then having to cut a discussion that people might feel is bringing somewhere, after all that's all they have been doing before adopting holacracy (discussing), I like your approach I am just not so much at ease with people asking questions about the tension before clarifying questions kicks in

Wouldn't it be safer for the sake of  process  integrity in case of total lack of creativity by the proposer to do this.

1) Facilitator to tension holder:"Don't feel forced to make it a good proposal, the purpose of IDM is just that: turn a bad proposal into the best it could become, but if you really have no idea, would you like to request some input from others"?

Tension holder:"yes" 

2) Facilitator starts a round asking others  one by one (no cross talk): "were you in his role, what would you propose? 

others: "no idea | tension makes no sense to me | yes I would do this..."

as soon as someone proposes  something:

3)facilitator to tension holder:  "would you like adopt this as an initial proposal, considering you'll have a chance to amend it later if you wish?"

4) as soon as proposer says "yes", capture it, interrupt round of opinions and move to clarifying questions (here others may ask questions about the tension and use the answer to better shape their reactions)

IF proposer never says yes, or none of the others comes up with something, I would probably give one last chance to the tension holder :" if you don't produce at least a starting proposal I am going to have to move on with the agenda" .

with more experienced people it would probably be easier to have an open discussion and just intervene as facilitator as soon as cliques start to arise around ideas, or people start to impose their view on the proposer. but with beginners I find it very risky.

 I realize this would not  really comply with the definition of  open discussion....  do you guys think it would be to strict to enforce?