Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site
Posted in GlassFrogBy Marco • 10/29/2016

assigning tensions in tactical

I noticed in triaging issues in the tactical meeting menu that a tension can not be assigned to a role but only to a person. I was wondering why that is the case, because you could argue that to promote role clarity in a tactical you should have the option to assign it to a role instead of a person.  

5 Replies
Bernard Marie Chiquet
10/29/2016

Hey Marco, interesting. My take on this one is because a Tension as defined in Section 1.2 is sensed by a Partner.

Andrea Faré
10/29/2016

Interesting, never thought about it, but I  think it is coherent with the the fact that the "what do YOU need?" question in tactical is phrased that way and not as "Which role of yours needs what?".  Loggin the tension personally allows you to make the most basic distinction between operational and organizational stuff: " I need to be able to expect that someone does xyz".You log the tension in its most raw-state and go on with the tactical without getting into details that can be later refined in governance.  

 

Alexia Bowers
10/29/2016

Hi Marco,

We've got a feature request in the backlog to allow choosing a role for a tension in both tactical meetings and from the My Tensions list. The reason it doesn't allow it now is just that we had wanted to ship it sooner in GlassFrog and felt that we could deliver it without the option to choose a role. Personally, I like to use this format for describing my tension: "As <role>, I want <goal/desire> so that <benefit>." See this post for more info on that.

Andrea Faré
10/29/2016

ahah, there goes my fancy reverse engineering ...  ;-)

Marco
10/30/2016

Hi All, thanks for the responses. I can follow the reasoning that a tension on governance starts from a person, and since the purpose of a tactical is clarification, I think it would also make sense to give the option to assign it to a role in glassfrog as Alexia suggests.