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

3.3.6 INTEGRATIVE ELECTION PROCESS

Hi,
 
Scenario
We just had a Governance meeting and a few anchor role elections. We had a tie which we couldn't seem to break. Having gone back to review the Holacracy constitution 4.1, we confirmed the following:
If there is a tie for the most nominations, then the Facilitator may do any one of the following:
(i) Blindly select one of the tied candidates randomly, and propose that person; or (ii) if the person currently filling the Role is among those tied, propose that person; or (iii) if only one of the tied candidates has nominated himself or herself, propose that person; or (iv) go back to the previous step and require each participant who nominated someone other than a tied candidate to change that nomination to one of the tied candidates, then continue back to this step and re-apply its rules.
 
Question
I'm of the understanding that the Facilitator role is responsible for "holding" the process, not getting involved with it. Shouldn't it be the Lead Link role who should select the candidate in a tie? 
 
4 Replies
jan
06/16/2016

In my opinion the facilitator is the one who cares least about the outcome of the election. He is merely interested in the fact that there is an outcome (which IS holding the process). All other roles might have an opinion about the particular candidates. 

There are some signals, that the facilitator does not really get involved in politics for that matter:

- selecting blindly/randomly, meaning that he does not include any consideration about who is best. Why don't you just flip a coin?

- referring to outside factors that he has no influence on, as mentioned in (ii) or (iii). 

I think it's pretty straightforward that the Facilitator has the last word here. 

Kevin
06/16/2016

Cobus,

I don't mind that the burden is on the facilitator, but I do wish that the tiebreaking process provided fewer options.  Even if the facilitator can do it by any of those methods, her selection of a particular method will in most cases have an effect on the ultimate proposal because he knows the results.  I think ideally there should be a hierarchy of tiebreaking procedures, so that you break the tie by means of method 1 if possible, then method 2, then method 3, then random if none of the above.  Another way to do it would just be to go straight to blind selection.

Kevin

Margaux
06/16/2016

I agree with Kevin, I attended an election where it was a bit manipulated because the Facilitator was one of the nominee as well...

Cobus Bothma
06/17/2016

Thanks everyone for the input on this. We ended up doing what Jan said and flipped a coin and broke the tie! :-). Kevin, I agree that it would be ideal if there were fewer options, as that would make it easier. Margaux, yes I too have witnessed how the process can be manipulated. I think as an organisation moves up the Holacracy maturity model though I would expect this to be less so. Would be interesting to get others thoughts on this as well.