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

Do we create role to avoid operational strategy conflicts?

In the The Five Dysfunctions of a Team book, I found a lot of common values with holacracy, except for one that I think is different, Fear of conflict.

Fear of conflict is the second dysfunction and the book says a team would be  better of to have more productive conflicts and even a leader should "stir" more conflict. On contrary, I often raise tension to be processed in governance when I am involved in the meeting after meeting debating over a particular operational strategy. Which in that case, I would ask, whose accountability is it , do we have any role for this kind of decision? and if there is one, we let him to take the decision, and if not, we create the role, assign people before letting him/her to decide.

What do you guys think about this? Am I wrong to think that holacracy actually bias towards less operational conflict, and whenever we found such conflict we need to resolve it quickly by altering circle's governance?

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

3 Replies
Bruce Peters

Isn't one of the principles of the "Tension Process" to surface the conflicts in order to resolve them.  In Dysfunctions the fear of conflict often causes inaction in the form of talking an issue to death or not talking about it at all. Either account is paralyzing to moving forward. Jerry Harvey in Abilene Paradox labeled this. Anxiety, uncertainty, speed or pace of change abound. The trick it seems is to have commitment to dealing with the tough stuff and a process that brings it on. 

As an aside the idea of speaking from role with a purpose is designed to reduce the fear or anxiety to use the process most effectively. 

As an unsolicited addendum to this. If you're not family with Harvey's work in addition to Abilene Paradox take a look at "How Come Every Time I Get Stabbed in the Back, My Fingerprints are on the Knife?" It is my very favorite title for a business and life book. 

Fajar Firdaus

Thank you [@mention:476716727608952329], 

I like that you mention the trick is to have commitment to deal with tough stuff and the process that brings it on. Holacracy, in my opinion , is really align with this. So after the tough stuff is brought upon and settled with role creation, the issue is gone, and we don't need to deal with this again whenever similar scenario arise right?

I guess to be more direct to the point, my follow up question would be, is it okay (common) for role filler to held a brainstorming session to reach a particular decision that's his accountability? In such session, invitee will be passionate about their opinion and what they thing is best, but we still let the role filler to make the final call (decision)?

Max Hesse

Hi [@mention:456308404149183518],

for me it is totally common to use Brainstorming or Focus Meetings as a format to gather input and feedback for a specific project that someone wants to push forward to enact his/her accountability. The role in need of input simply asks other roles that are part of the project or that he seeks input from to attend.

You don't have to hold a meeting though. If the path is crystal clear and the role filler has the feeling that he doesn't need extra advice, he of course should just go and do a next action ("Just do it").

Hope that helps a bit.