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

Hi Anne Nynke,

In my understanding :

1- Such a policy + an accountability can bring the same effect than a domain t(if the accountability include the obigation to explain the objection to the demander in case the role's filler give a "no", you reach the same effect cf 4.1.2 (c)). Little difference nevertheless : a role with a domain can create policies on the domain by its own. If you have a policy + accountabilit, you have no right to edit a proper policy (but you could edit  a document explaining how you express your accountability with some rules, which would have the same result)

In my opinion, such a policy + acc. is valid governance. In that case, I find Domain a more elegant way, but it's totally ok.

2- Such a policy without an accountability : would be quite bad governance, because the role has no clear expectation on it to consider and process the requests. If I coach the circle, I would consider it as probably a sign of misunderstanding of policy (that don't require action). But personally I would consider it valid if phrased this way. Because there is no explicit call to action. And if the role filler judges that it serve his role's purpose to process the requests he receives after the adopton of this policy, that will work. If he doesn't, someone will have a tension and wil bring it to the next governance meeting.

3- such a policy + a domain on the role : valid but redundant (valid & bad).

So to answer your last question :

"Can you make a circle policy, expecting a role to give approval without giving this role an accountability or domain for it?"

It's better not to, good governance recomand point 1- ; but you can (bad governance is not necessarily invalid governance ; it might trigger coaching -picking up wisely your battles depending on the situation- and not NVGO objection)

Hope that helps