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

[@mention:449693036223847456] I don't disagree in principle, and maybe my sense of it is different than Adam's, so I could be underestimating the impact of how other facilitator's may convey the message, but for my own use of the word, "we" in this kind of context, it works perfectly well. It nicely offsets the otherwise impersonal feeling of the meetings, and it's strategically ambiguous, which allows everyone to unconsciously select the meaning they prefer (i.e. "we" could mean facilitator-objector, or facilitator-objector-proposer, or everyone in this meeting, or...). So, I don't think it necessarily conveys any particular message other than, "There is a norm that it's OK to raise an objection." Or at least that's been my experience with using framing like that. Of course that may not feel authentic (and therefore wouldn't work) for everyone.