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

Today we had practice with [@mention:563839477050140014], [@mention:573270378663965046] and Toon Franken. The group is getting more cohesive at this point and we are starting to do more complex facilitation cases. Thanks for a great practice guys!

One of the things caught our attention.

> Objection testing and "reasonable" aegument

We had a case that a role had problems with communicating what is the harm under hers objection. The facilitator offered structure by repeating the "what's the harm" for a few times to unstuck the process but it also occurred to us that we could refer to section 3.2.5 of the Constitution. It says that "(...) the Objector must be able to present a resonable argument (...)". So based on that the facilitator could say something like "this does not sound reasonable and according to the Constitution we will not process this Objection as it does not meet the reasonability threshold". Not nice as it is

Does anyone had any real-life situation that we used this section or has any comments about this?

> Giving coaching "advice" during reaction round vs. "time-outing"

Also I personally found useful to give my coach-reaction to a proposal (for example it should be a policy etc.) during the reaction round instead of having a time-out not to break the flow of the process when not needed as it's a bit more of an IPL (in process learning) this way. Any comments on this and preserving the flow of the meeting are welcome.