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

Frequency definition - Bad or Invalid Governance?

I just received a question from a facilitator. They had a proposal in which they wanted to specify the frequency of an accountability, in this case conducting a performance review ("three times a year"). They didn't process it, because the facilitator had doubts and wanted to check back with a coach first.

My (and his) question is, whether this already qualifies as "specific operational decision", hence NVGO?

My first hunch was that it might be not invalid, merely "bad" governance. 

If the accountability reads "conducting performance reviews three times a year" it would still be valid accounting to say "yeah, I didn't energize that much - I managed to do it only once." While the accountability is somewhat 'predicty', trying to pre-prioritize a future workflow, in practice it might not really be a problem. A lot of accountabilities don't get energized - so why not triple it? 3 x 0 still equals 0. (;-)

My advice was to test the proposal itself and become curious. "Why is it necessary to specify that frequency? Why not leave it unspecified instead? What is an example of a real tension that would have been resolved or reduced by specifying the frequency of the accountability?"

If the proposer can present a convincing argument for why not specifying the frequency would cause harm, then so be it. Specify it. If not - good. Get rid of the frequency. 

That was my first shot. Can somebody enlighten me? How do you guys deal with attempts of specifying frequency? Is it plain NVGO? Somehow reading the constitution didn't really answer it for me clearly...

 

No Replies