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

Does every role have a domain? Confused by Section 1.1

A“Role” is an organizational construct with a descriptive name and one or more of the following:

  • (b) one or more “Domains”, which are things the Role may exclusively control and regulate as its property, on behalf of the Organization.

 

The way this reads, it sounds like every role should have at least one domain. But I thought it was something optional. Has something changed? Am I misreading this?

7 Replies
Alexey Ilyichev
01/12/2016

Hi Fred!

It says "one or more of the following", meaning that the role can have just one, and not all of these. There might be a role with just an accountability, and no domains or purpose. Or there could be a role with just a domain, and no accountabilities or purpose.

So the answer is no, role doesn't have to have a domain.

Fred Magovern
01/12/2016

Ok, I thought every role needed a name, purpose, and at least one accountability. Was that a change? Or has it always been that way?

Bhargavi
01/12/2016

Every Role needs a name, purpose and list of accountabilities but the domain is optional. Mind you each of this could be altered anytime in Governance meeting.

 

Fred Magovern
01/12/2016

Lol ok, so if that's true, isn't the Constitution's phrasing inaccurate/misleading?

Alexey Ilyichev
01/13/2016
Fred M. posted:

Ok, I thought every role needed a name, purpose, and at least one accountability. Was that a change? Or has it always been that way?

I'm not sure if that was changed, but that makes sense to me. You want a low barrier for creating a new role, otherwise people will just try to add stuff to the existing roles, which is not what you want. Roles are supposed to be as small and atomic as they can be.

I think Brian also mentioned that during the CHP training in December.

Margaux
01/13/2016

Before (before 4.0 I think), you needed at least an accountability to create a role. In 4.0, you need just a name to define a role because Brian said “a role has a purpose, wether it is explicit or not” and now in 4.1, you need at least one of the elements.

A good practice is to define a role with a purpose to begin with. Accountabilities are not here to describe the role's work, the purpose is here to define the identity of the role.

Fred Magovern
01/13/2016
Margaux posted:

Before (before 4.0 I think), you needed at least an accountability to create a role. In 4.0, you need just a name to define a role because Brian said “a role has a purpose, wether it is explicit or not” and now in 4.1, you need at least one of the elements.

A good practice is to define a role with a purpose to begin with. Accountabilities are not here to describe the role's work, the purpose is here to define the identity of the role.

Understood. So every role needs a name, and in theory you could have a role with just a name and domain (based on the Constitution's phrasing).