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

[@mention:454478741268114544] I also think it's hard to effectively coach a single practitioner on ways to feel more comfortable in an environment whose norms reinforce, "objections are judgments." 

So, instead I think it's more of a facilitator intervention. Especially when it comes to testing objections and how they respond to invalid ones (do they show any hint of glee when they tell the person it's invalid?). Ideally, the facilitator shows gratitude for anyone bringing an objection, valid or not, thereby making the distinction less meaningful. 

A facilitator also has the most leverage to push against those norms by continually referencing the objection round. Like if someone is trying to help in Present Proposal, "Wait. It's not your space, but if you still think there's any problem with the proposal, please raise an objection [intentionally not mentioning reaction round]."

Or framing Clarifying Questions, "This is just for questions, if you understand the proposal, but don't like it, then you'll have space to get that off your chest in your reaction, or better still....raise an objection." 

There are tons of ways to do it, my point is simply to make raising objections something that I, as facilitator, want to see happen. They don't need to worry about validity. That is what you figure out together through the questions, and so what if you encourage people to raise invalid objections? They'll just get more experience learning the difference. 

So, I think it's really more of a process-level, or group-level intervention that's needed. It's a lot to expect one individual to push against the norms of the group, no matter how good the coaching might be.