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

Do Lead Links have to continuously create roles for undelegated domains and accountabilities ?

Hi, all:

The Lead Link acts as the role that handles everything that has not been delegated to any role within the circle.

For the sake of clarity, does the Lead Link have to continuously define new role every time he/she identifies another undelegated domain/accountability ? Or can it stay undelegated forever until someone has a tension about it ?

Thanks,

 

Dien.

 

10 Replies
Margaux
01/31/2016

Hi Dien,

 

There are two different elements here: accountabilities & domains.

1/ Accountabilities: yes, it is the Lead Link's duty to differentiate it into one or more role (by creating a new role or adding it to an existing role). Until the governance meeting (or gov out of gov proposal) comes up, it is the Lead Link who fills that accountability. A good Lead Link would definitely not work and differentiate it in governance ASAP.

2/ Domains: a domain on the circle doesn't have to be broken down into one or more role. It can stay as the “family property” until some tensions arise and you need to put more clarity by delegating part of the domain on a role for example or by defining a policy in the governance of the circle. In this scenario, it would no longer be the family property.

Hope that helps.

Dien Kwik
02/05/2016

Hi, Margaux:

Thanks for the clarification.

So, in practice, let's say, something needs to get done and there is no role yet to do this, and no one else has tensions about this, then the Lead Link automatically handles that. The Lead Link can choose to either:

  • propose a new role to do just that in governance first, and then fill that role, perhaps with himself, and then take the action.
  • or, just take the action first, and then go to governance ASAP to propose the role that is supposed to take this action.

 

When done properly, the Lead Link will eventually never have to handle "undelegated accountabilities" any more since once any undelegated accountability is discovered, it is brought governance immediately, and the accountability is added to a new role or an existing one. 

Does that sound about right ?

I'm also curious where this is mentioned in the constitution. I've heard multiple recordings that mention this, but not sure which section of the constitution actually says this.

 

Thanks,

 

Dien.

 

Bernard Marie Chiquet
02/06/2016

Hi Dien,

Yes is Yes to your first question "Does that sound about right ?"

Re your second question "I'm also curious where this is mentioned in the constitution. I've heard multiple recordings that mention this, but not sure which section of the constitution actually says this."

I would say in my understanding, this is part of what is behind this first accountability of Lead Link Role : "Structuring the Governance of the Circle to enact its Purpose and Accountabilities

Bernard Marie

 

Fred Magovern
11/15/2016
Margaux posted:

 

2/ Domains: a domain on the circle doesn't have to be broken down into one or more role. It can stay as the “family property” until some tensions arise and you need to put more clarity by delegating part of the domain on a role for example or by defining a policy in the governance of the circle. In this scenario, it would no longer be the family property.

I have had the same understanding, but this seems to be at odds with the Constitution. What am I missing?

v 4.1 section 2.2.2: 

A Circle’s Lead Link inherits the Purpose and any Accountabilities on the Circle itself, and controls any Domains defined on the Circle, just as if the Circle were only a Role and the Lead Link filled that Role.

 

 

Bernard Marie Chiquet
11/15/2016
Fred Magovern posted:
Margaux posted:

 

2/ Domains: a domain on the circle doesn't have to be broken down into one or more role. It can stay as the “family property” until some tensions arise and you need to put more clarity by delegating part of the domain on a role for example or by defining a policy in the governance of the circle. In this scenario, it would no longer be the family property.

I have had the same understanding, but this seems to be at odds with the Constitution. What am I missing?

v 4.1 section 2.2.2: 

A Circle’s Lead Link inherits the Purpose and any Accountabilities on the Circle itself, and controls any Domains defined on the Circle, just as if the Circle were only a Role and the Lead Link filled that Role.

 

 

I think you're referring to section 2.2.1 and there is last sentence in this section that states : "...However, this only applies to the extent that those Accountabilities and Domains have not been placed upon a Role within the Circle, or otherwise delegated. Further, the Lead Link may not define Policies that limit the Circle’s Roles, except via the Governance Process of the Circle."

So in case Domains have been placed upon roles within the circle, they are no longer like *family property* nad cannot be impacted by Lead Link neither other defined roles within the circle.

Does this make sense?

 

Fred Magovern
11/15/2016

Assuming the domain is un-delegated, would it be valid governance output for a Circle Member other than the Lead Link to propose a policy constraining that domain?

Assuming the domain is un-delegated, can any Circle Member impact the domain as long as they are doing so in order to energize one of their Roles?

Bernard Marie Chiquet
11/15/2016
Fred Magovern posted:

Assuming the domain is un-delegated, would it be valid governance output for a Circle Member other than the Lead Link to propose a policy constraining that domain?

Yes... if there is a valid tension/proposal (i.e. a tension that limits such role enacting its purpose or one of its accountabilities. (Cf. section 3.2.2 for more details)

 

Assuming the domain is un-delegated, can any Circle Member impact the domain as long as they are doing so in order to energize one of their Roles?

Answer is yes per section 2.1.2

2.1.2 Roles May Impact Circle Domains

When filling a Role in a Circle, you may use and impact any Domain controlled by the Circle itself, or that the Circle is authorized to impact...

Fred Magovern
11/15/2016

Then what does it mean for a Lead Link to "control any Domain defined on the Circle" assuming it's un-delegated?

A Circle’s Lead Link inherits the Purpose and any Accountabilities on the Circle itself, and controls any Domains defined on the Circle, just as if the Circle were only a Role and the Lead Link filled that Role.

Bernard Marie Chiquet
11/20/2016

It means from a Super-Circle perspective, the Sub-Circle is just seen as a Role, that such role has the Domain like any other Role control a Domain.

From a Sub-Circle perspective, it means that every role within the sub-cirle may impact such Domain as family property.

Is that enough to answer your question?

Fred Magovern
11/21/2016

Got it, that makes sense - thanks Bernard. Perhaps this can be clearer in the next version of the Constitution.