I am learning Holacracy and, while building experience, I often ask myself why things are defined in a certain way. For example the Governance Meetings. Let’s bring an example first, as it is easier to discuss than in theory.

EXAMPLE SITUATION:

• I am a “Design Thinking Consultant” in the sub-circle “Professional Services” of a company who also has another sub-circle named “Training”.
• Purpose of my role is to have “my clients get the most out of the Design Thinking (DT) methodology”
• I have a tension, that the DT-training offered by the Training sub-circle is not aligned with my understanding of DT, therefore, when we both talk to customers they get confused.
• Simply talking to the training guys did not solve the issue since both of us have invested a lot in different DT-models and are not willing to drop it.
• A colleague with the role of “Project Management Consultant” has a very similar issue

CLASSICAL SOLUTION:

If I understand H. correctly, I would bring up a proposal to my next governance meeting (e.g. create an accountability for the “Strategist” role to create a roadmap with a clear path on how to merge the “professional services” and “Training” DT-approaches. Let’s say the proposal is accepted, then my colleague would have to do the same.

(IMHO) FASTER SOLUTION:

After understanding my problem, during the reaction round, my colleague is allowed to **add a part to my proposal**, provided that it will not hinders me in solving my tension. His proposal is to add the words " & Project Management" after 'DT' in my proposal. This will solve both tensions faster.

Why shouldn’t we allow something like this?

Thank you in advance for your help!

Andrea