The entire point of assigning roles is exactly so that people don't bring tensions from this undifferentiated point of view.

We want them to have to define their tension as coming from a Role and if they can't bring it from the POV of a Role, we want them to understand that that tension is not valid for the current Governance or Tactical meeting.

For tensions related to human issues like you discussed, I suggest setting up a Role that works with those issues.  For example, we have an @EmployeeHappiness role.

Thank you for the reply, but...

I understand your point, and I understand the whole idea.

Still I don't know what should I do as a Facilitator with the situation like that:

1. Someone have the proposal to make all salaries public - the idea is that the more transparency is better - for many reasons.

2. Someone have an objection, and when tested he might say - "I feel it in my all roles, because if my salary is public, I don't feel good and I loose motivation for my work..."

Does it sound like a valid objection?

Mikolaj - this is a known issue

Basically, Holacracy is not intended to cover these kind of Partner issues. It's only designed to regulate roles IE work. At the same time, in self-governing organisations we do come across issues relating to people (like salary) that we somehow need to give everyone a say in. How do we do that? Our solution at GrantTree is to have a Partner role in a separate sub-circle of the Board.

See this thread for more: ...7#563698739569210687

Mikolaj:  When testing that objection, I'd ask the objector if there's a specific role they can point to, with a specific purpose or specific accountability that's made more difficult, or if they have a general sense that it'll be harder on them as a partner to energize any role?  If they say the latter, I'd say they just told me it's not a valid objection.  If they say the former, then I'd ask them which role and which purpose/accountability, and how it would be harder to express that one...

When testing that objection, I'd ask the objector if there's a specific role they can point to, with a specific purpose or specific accountability that's made more difficult, or if they have a general sense that it'll be harder on them as a partner to energize any role?

I love how this question is framed. Thank you!

Thanks for comments, I almost understand.... : )

So in other words, this is a "real problem" of a Partner, but this is not "valid objection" of a Role.

So there should be some Role to take care of Partner's problems (Like Partners Representative?), and this Role could make a valid objection - is that right?

Regards