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

[@mention:456308404149183518]:

I mean encouraging raising any objection, because I don't want participants thinking its an expectation on them to filter out valid from invalid ones in their head...that's what the testing is for. So, bring up any old thing...and as Facilitator, I'll work with you to figure out if it meets the criteria. That's the idea. 

As for being more lax with testing...no. I wouldn't say that as general guidance (though I don't know how they are currently being tested in your circle, so it's possible I might actually say yes).  

Here are some rules of thumb that will help ensure you're dealing with objection testing with the appropriate amount of rigor:

  • Encourage people to raise objections (i.e. to "try" them)
  • Keep in mind the distinction between an "objection" which is any argument (valid or not) and a "valid objection," in other words, in this context, an "objection" isn't a reason something causes harm...it's just a reason. Don't convey people should pre-filter. 
  • If you don't know if it's valid or invalid, don't stress too much about figuring it out...just chart it and integrate it (you can always retest in integration, and sometimes it's easier to think if you aren't on the spot and everyone else is talking). 
  • Let the objector define his/her own objection (write down what they say), and allow them as many arguments or variations of an argument (i.e. objections) as they want. 
  • You could almost assume every objection was valid and integrate it, and you would do little harm other than slowing things down. Keep that in mind.