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

Call for Feedback/Ideas - Updating the Official Holacracy Meeting Cards!!!

 

Hello all,  I’m updating the Holacracy meeting cards v. 4.0 and I want to gather as much feedback from the community as I can before Jan. 5th. It’s a somewhat artificial time box, but I want to provide enough time without delaying too much.

Your feedback can be general or specific, but it would be really helpful if you provide suggestions in the following format, "I’d like [change you’d like to see], so that [why or what you’re trying to achieve with that change])."

Please post your comments on this thread instead of emailing them to me. Thanks!!!!

37 Replies
Tyler Danke
12/24/2015

I would like to see the testing objections make it obvious which ones need to be tested because it would be easy for someone to think that you only need to pass one of the tests to be valid.

Also the meeting cards do not make it explicit how testing of objections work. I would like to see the meeting cards answer my questions that follow because it creates confusion when they don't. Who asks the testing questions? Who answers?  Who gets to decide if it is acceptable to pass the test? The book made this clear but the cards don't.

Chris Cowan
12/27/2015

Thanks Tyler! 

Tyler Danke
12/27/2015

The cards don't show Who gets to add and subtract and modify checklist and key projects that get updated. Do these changes have to be brought up as tensions? 

Evi
12/28/2015

I would like to see more schematic visualization of the testing objections so it becomes more clear how it flows, who speaks, etc. 

Maybe use questions instead : 

1. Does the proposal degrades the circles capacity? 

and maybe use an old school yes/no diagram? like this : http://www.ster.be/cobol/if.gif

Another very small thing: I would like to see the 'Agenda Item Owner' with capitals so it becomes more clear this is a person.

All the rest is really clear and helpful!

Chris Cowan
12/28/2015

Thanks Tyler and Evi!

Tyler - these changes don't need to be brought up in any particular way. Tensions are fine...but so are pitches, ideas, suggestions, etc.  

Keith Jarvis
12/28/2015

Okay, so my pitch is a bit of a word-smith item - re the standardized use of "What do you need?"

In my organization we endeavor to differentiate from WANT and NEED - and the standard use of addressing/processing Tensions are about WANT.  

I am using and promoting the use of "What do you want to have happen?" in our Holacracy Study.  It's a simple substitution and reinforces the separate between OPINION and FACT.

Then, the follow-up, instead of "Did you get what you need?", we're testing out 'Is this handled for now?' and 'Does that address your Tension?'

Again, the idea is not to FULLY RESOLVE every Tension in the course of the meeting, but to provide the individual the means to get the Tension resolved.  So the Facilitator's job is to just check to see if the means to get resolve has been met - and certainly not to fulfill someone's arbitrarily-defined sense of NEED.

We use the meeting cards heavily and other than that language item - found in the Tactical Meeting card's Triage section and Facilitator Tips.  I don't believe it's on the Governance card.

Brian Robertson
12/28/2015

Hey Keith - I like where you're going with this.  I find there's something super powerful in a short, quick, colloquial question here though, so I'd worry "What do you want to have happen?" may be a bit too verbally long/cumbersome to have the needed punch - but curious what you find from experimenting.  As a potential alternative, maybe experiment with "What would you like?"...?

Paul Walker
12/28/2015

Yo, Chris! Here are the updates I'd like to see along with my reasoning.

I'd like framing vs directions made to be distinctly different on the rounds part of the card for both Tactical and Governance, so that it makes it much clearer what a Facilitator-in-learning needs to know vs what they need to say.

We see a lot of people using the cards to facilitate when starting out and the lack of this differentiating wording throws them off. For example, you can reach the "Check-in Round" of the Tactical card word-for-word and it would suffice as basic enough framing. However, if you do the same for "Checklist Review", now you are telling the Circle the directions for the Facilitator instead of framing what *they* need to know. Even a distinct color coding for framing vs directions or something that makes it clear what the Facilitator needs to read out loud and what they just need to know to run the meeting would help a lot.I don't have much more because I think the other pieces are generally pretty clear. Hopefully that makes sense. If not, feel free to e-mail me so we can chat! Keep up the good work!

Christel Hofman
12/29/2015

Hi Chris,

I'd like to change the Testing Objection card in clear sentences. F.e. 1) The proposal would degrade the Circle's capacity (this is explanation), then the green part Is THAT a reason this causes harm or moves us backward? (and how?) The word THAT is confusing when you read it for the first time. Is it the proposal or the objection? I would like to change it into "Is this proposal a reason this causes harm or moves the circle backward? ("and how?). Then in blue "Is IT a better idea...". I would like to change this in "Is your proposal a better idea or...?" So on for the whole card.

At the Governance Meetings card I would like to see an add. Because "tension" in Dutch feels very big, heavily and blocks people. I always ask for positive tensions / ideas or negative tensions / something that bothers you or you want to get rid off. Maybe the word can be softened somehow? In the closing round I would like to explain the reflection by adding "thoughts or feelings,  you want to leave behind in this meeting, so you it becomes knowledge for the whole group and we can improve next meetings."

At the Tactical Meetings card I'd like to add that it is a fast pace meeting and a short explanation why we review the checklist, metrics and project updates. But maybe this is too much explanations for the cards and people just need to read the book and/or attend a training  ;-).

 

Keith Jarvis
12/30/2015

Brian -

Agreed in the short, quick, colloquial - and - what gets defined as colloquial may vary based on team/organization tradition.  The phrase 'what would you like to have happen here' is pretty darned common in peer-facilitated support groups and events, which is much of what MKP provides.  So that tongue-tripper isn't all that onerous for us to consider use of, and has been useful in our boot-strapping study groups.  Specifically it's useful as a reminder to each that it's not the Facilitator's responsibility to 'fix' or provide solutions but rather to support the individual in finding their own solutions within the construct.

BUT, it may not translate more broadly - so your 'what would you like' and its variants may be more applicable.  Some additional, more general language spaghetti-on-wall, considering that the individual has expressed something about their Tension by this point.

- "How can we help?" ('how can we help you address that Tension?', 'how can we support you in addressing that tension?')

- "What might help?"  ('what might help you address that Tension?')

or if they have not yet stated the Tension...

- "What is your Tension and how can we help?"

or such

Koen Veltman
01/03/2016

Hi Chris,

Great initiative!

2 ideas:

  • What about making the cards "open source" and share the cards in a format like ppt instead of pdf. On the one hand this allows organizations to insert their own alternatives for sentences like "what do you need" that work in the local context and on the other hand allows for adding the own look and feel with a company logo, a matching color scheme etc. These cards are so often used that it would be great to make them something special for the organization. In this way you keep the H1 format (instead of the retrofits I see now) but get a bit more localization included.
  • just for general interest: is there a formal difference between constitution 4.0 and 4.1 that is included in the card update? would just love to know.

Koen

Chris Cowan
01/06/2016

This has all been really really helpful. Anyone have anything to share about the Tactical meeting cards? 

Chris Cowan
01/06/2016

Koen, I really like the idea of making them more widely available. I have several roles involved here, but I also need to integrate with other roles internally...but I'll see what I can do because one of my role in particular, would really like them to be widely accessible and locally customizable. 

Tyler Danke
01/06/2016

Maybe there could be a visual checks on a grid. For example a column would be Cross Talk and a row would be Checkin Round. The value for that cell would be NO. Checklist review NO. Metrics review NO. 

I like the idea of the wording being consistent or clarified for wether it is something that the facilitator should say out loud or if it is something that the facilitator needs to do or think.

Koen Veltman
01/07/2016

Thanks Chris for considering it! Lets call it "evolution through diversification".  And see what appears when people can tailor to their needs 

Tyler Danke
01/13/2016

I would like to suggest that for consistency both the tactical meetings and the governance meetings have the "Build Agenda" phase. Right now governance has it mentioned as a separate step and tactical does not have it as a separate step.

For check-in and Closing use a single consistent description wording on both cards. Right now they are different on both cards. 

The different sections of the meeting could be named more succinctly. Instead of Administrative Concerns it could just be Administrative. Agenda instead of build agenda. Reactions instead of Reaction Round. Metrics instead of Metrics review. I find that round and review are not needed.

It is confusing that it is called Triage Issues instead of Triage Tensions or just tensions.

In governance there is no succinct headline for step four. It could have a header of Integrative Decision Making Process.

The Facilitator Tips and the Testing Objections need to very clearly show that that Facilitator tips is for Tactical and Testing objections is Governance. When they are printed out as paper copies and you have four separate sheets of paper this is confusing so I have had to write on everyone's sheets for these TACTICAL and GOVERNANCE. 

The Testing objections page does not make it clear what the X leads to. Does this lead to "Not valid" I know the answer but those starting to learn Holacracy don't. 

Check or no check is confusing. A simple YES or NO seems to be so much more succinct.

Fred Magovern
01/14/2016

Can someone link to the cards in their current state? Just want to make sure I know what everyone's referring to and have the latest version.

Tyler Danke
01/15/2016

Here is the governance meeting card http://www.holacracy.org/wp-co...Meetings-card-bw.pdf

and the tactical meeting card http://www.holacracy.org/wp-co...Meetings-card-bw.pdf

Andrea Faré
01/27/2016

I'm with Christel on the first sentence of the Testing Objections card and would make a couple of changes.

1) —> Is this a reason the proposal causes harm or moves us backward?
(we are testing the objection so the word “this” naturally refers to the objection ,not to the proposal, in my opinion)
 
OR
 
2) is it a better idea,  something else we should consider, or the proposal just feels unnecessary?
(there might be better wordings to this but the "unnecessary" word, which I heard Karilen use as an example of how to be creative with the options after the OR statement, would rule out a lot of not-so-well-grounded objections in my opinion.
Bernard Marie Chiquet
07/22/2016

Hey Chris,

Where are you with process cards? Any new version (to be) released? 

Please, let me know as I'm revisiting french localized version..

Chris Cowan
07/22/2016

The new process cards are done! I'll upload them in a separate thread. :0)

Bernard Marie Chiquet
07/22/2016

Cool, could you send them to me so that I'll be able to localize them in french langage :=)

Tyler Danke
07/22/2016

The excitement is intoxicating. What by when ?

Chris Cowan
07/22/2016

Well, I thought it would be easy, but having trouble uploading the PDFs... : / 

LiuYan@HK
07/25/2016
Chris Cowan posted:

The new process cards are done! I'll upload them in a separate thread. :0)

Hi Chris, where can I find the new cards?

Thanks!

Chris Cowan
07/26/2016

LIUYAN -- still trying to get them onto the CoP. For some reason I cannot upload PDFs. Once I get that figured out, I'll post them in a separate thread. They will also be made available on the web. Not sure when that will happen, but hopefully soon. If that happens quickly, then I'll make a post with those links instead of the PDFs.

Joe
07/29/2016

I don't know if the actual cards are different, but the Tactical Meeting Cards under the Printed Tools link (still) say "Project" Updates Round while the Constitution says "Progress" Updates. I wouldn't have realized it if it weren't recently pointed out in the Practicing Holacracy forum.

This was actually a point of contention among one of the circles I facilitate because we were following the meeting cards and someone was recapping one of their accountabilities and I stopped them (citing the "project" aspect of the Project Updates round).

After rereading 4.2.3 (d) I have a better understanding of the round, but please make sure to update the cards. I think they could be cause for undue tension!

Bernard Marie Chiquet
07/29/2016

Thanks Joe. You're right, the cards are not exactly the same as the Constitution Section 4.2.3 (d) . We've made the same *mistake* with the french localization of the cards. I was exploring the option of amending it, and was at first looking for an example/situation where Circle Members would give updates re an Accountability. 

Could you tell me more re this case you've have had when "someone was recapping one of their accountabilities" - curious to know more about it.

Chris Cowan
08/01/2016

hey @Joe, yeah I know that can cause some confusion. My reasoning for keeping it "Project Updates" is because it seems more intuitive for new practitioners to understand. And the cards are oriented towards new practitioners. 

I think an "update" as in "project update" captures the meaning of "progress" well enough; update = progress. Though of course sometimes you need to clarify that the update is not intended to be a status report. 

Although something like "Project Progress" may be workable. I'll definitely consider it.

Joe
08/01/2016

@Chris, I believe the tension came from the inclusion of the word "project" not "update". I agree that "update" infers "progress" but my interpretation was that "project" infers "not accountabilities". The Constitution seems more broad with its intent for the round asking "each participant to highlight progress towards achieving any Project or expressing any Accountability..." It goes on to specify "not the general status" of these items, but I don't know what would qualify as a progress update for an accountability. Accountabilities are a checklist item, at best, as I am personally not interested in hearing about recurring/BAU tasks. Any issues impeding progress on those would/should be brought up as tensions for triage.

I guess I should have also mentioned the option to change the wording in the Constitution, but I that would be more in Constitution Steward's domain. I am on the side of keeping this round to project updates only. 

@Bernard, regarding the previously mentioned incident: We're a legal marketing firm and one of the roles' accountabilities is to capture and publish case results in a way that highlights the attorney's effectiveness and give examples of types of cases the attorney takes on (to encourage contact from potential clients). In the Project Update round, we've just gone around the room (small team) and asked "Any updates?" and in this instance, the role-filler began to tell about some of the cases they had recently recorded. I certainly take an amount of responsibility as facilitator of the meeting for not asking for updates about specific projects but that actually stems from a larger issue where the company uses the term "project" rather loosely .

Pre-Holacracy, the team members were asked by the project coordinator what their weeks looked like, and those with accountabilities vs. projects would respond with, "I'm doing this accountability for clients A, B, and C, and this accountability for clients X, Y, and Z." I didn't see the value in using meeting time to do that, so I'm a bit sensitive to it happening now. To be fair, we are very much in our infancy of adopting Holacracy, so it's a habit I'm trying to break them of.

Jenn
08/02/2016

Thanks for looking for feedback on this!

We are new to this and self taught so that's my perspective.

We love and us the meeting cards. I appreciate the simplicity! 

Tactical Card - I think the tactical card is great the project updates works for us, we know what it means. I think because we have clear definitions of what a project is. Initially we had a challenging time setting up metrics as a preschool program that's just a little less concrete. We spent some time outs talking about what metrics would be helpful and in triage helping the lead link create some metrics. On the back I love the facilitator tips I would add a section about what to do if no one says anything. It's not as much as a problem now but initially people felt uncomfortable with the structure and they would say nothing hoping the meeting could end and they could go around the structure to get things done (both in tactical and governance).  Maybe just some reflection questions to 'bring tensions forward'.

Governance Card -

I'm still not sure if we are using the administrative section well or if there is something more to do there. I know in some videos they talk about reading the circle's purpose or mission (is that in governance or tactical?) I never was clear where something like that would fit so we haven't been doing that.

Where those who are new to the process get stuck is in the present the proposal step. They haven't ever been asked what they think would make it better so this is very new. Any experienced leaders might give suggestions about specifics but some more 'support' from the card for when the proposer can't figure out what to propose would be helpful. 

In the amend and clarify round I often use the words 'you have heard the reactions, you don't have any responsibility to integrate them all just what would best resolve your tension and move us forward.' 

On the back it is good, I do agree with the person who said it should be clear you have to go through all the steps, an objection is valid if, you could just add all the following are true.

Also under 5) breaks the constitution it would be great to have clarity for new partners what that might be. Either a quick not of what valid outputs are or what would make an output invalid. Particularly around policies. 

 

Thanks again for looking for feedback for your updates and I hope this was helpful. Also I would guess the January timeline is quite long judging by the pace of this forum.

Jenn

Koen Veltman
10/26/2016

@chris

on the tactical meeting card there are now 7 steps (build agenda is new). where in glassfrog this step is noy yet there and there are just 6 meeting steps. one of my clients got slightly confused about when I introduced the meeting steps. 

does your role care about aligning this?

btw - like the clarity of the new cards a lot!

Tyler Danke
10/26/2016

Seems funny that building agenda is a step in the Governance card but not in the Tactical card. 

Chris Cowan
10/26/2016

Tyler - it's there. See step #5. 

http://www.holacracy.org/wp-co...tical-card_2016_.pdf

Chris Cowan
10/26/2016

Koen - interesting. Yeah, I see that. Maybe that is something for the Glassfrog team to fix/clarify. Thanks for sharing that!! 

Tyler Danke
10/26/2016

Sorry. I assumed that the Android app would have the same words as the cards. Distributed authority is fun  

Chris Cowan
10/26/2016

[@mention:456167666726491228] Oh! Gotcha. Yeah, I'm working on updating that as well. But yes, that makes sense. The mobile app is in need of an update.