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

Default Role: "Partner"

Hi,

I have a question (I am sorry if already discussed, but could not find the answer in forum)

Is it possible to say, that everyone in organisation has a "default role" of Partner?

Sometimes when we disucss issues relating to everyone in organisation (salary, holidays, schedule, working days etc.), some Partners have tensions or objections, but it is not clear from which role - they usually say "from all my roles" or "as a partner" is this way of thinking correct?

I would be very greatfull for any comment.

Regards

6 Replies
Kevin Bombino
09/06/2017

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.

Mikolaj
09/06/2017

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?

awo
09/07/2017

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

Brian Robertson
09/07/2017

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...

Mohammed Ali Vakil
09/07/2017

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!

 

Mikolaj
09/08/2017

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