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

Integrative Election Process

Constitution 3.3.6 (f) documents how to Process Proposal of an Integrative Election Process.

My question is: may the facilitator test the objection considering criteria of valid objection (3.2.4) or just have to be intuitive ? That sounds a little weird, but might be helpfull when not so good faith people, dislike the proposed candidate instead of raising a relevant reason that electing this candidate "could cause harm or move the circle backward..."

Any advice or experience ?

4 Replies
Bernard Marie Chiquet
02/18/2016

Hi Jean-Michel,

My take on this one is that the Facilitator may test the validity of an Objection according to:

3.3.6 (f) "...the Facilitator must start directly with the Objection round,and, if the proposed candidate is present, the Facilitator must ask the candidate for Objections last. If any Objections are raised, the Facilitator may choose to process them normally, or to discard the Proposal either immediately after the Objection round or at any point during the integration step"

With coaching a new circle, if a raised Objection sounds like "the Objector disliking the Proposed candidate" - this could be a tough one in my experience. In such case, I think I would capture it (and I'm also quite sure that in some cases, depending on the context, I would test it and take the opportunity for coaching/learning points) and see if there are other Objections within the Circle. If there are a lot, then I I would discard the Proposal. If there is only one, or two, I would go to integration as an opportunity for them to learn more - for example very often people think the the other person being proposed is too busy to fill the Sec. Role or won't like the Role or will not be able to object themselves even if they don't want the Role, etc... In such cases, I learned by experience, these are major opportunities for them to learn both Holacracy and new mental models behind it. During such integration, I may use the test questions for learning purpose.

One anecdocte here - I remember one time i did test the Objection like "Is that a reason why this would causes harm or moves us backward ... or are you just telling us you don't appreciate this person" which was very powerful because in this specific context, this was publicly known by everybody.

Many other cases I would love to dig in with you another time...

Hope this helps...

Bernard Marie

Jean-Michel Gode
07/24/2016

HI Bernard-Marie,


Enlighting comment! But I'm not so sure that the testing questions apply in a Integrative Election Process... From my senses, elected people need to be trusted and legitimate in their roles. But let's try and see ;-)

Regards,
Jean-Michel

Bernard Marie Chiquet
07/24/2016

Hi Jean-Michel,

I'm just applying the rules of the game here, which are covered in Section 3.6: once the Facilitator makes a Proposal, he just move to the IDM Objection Round, so same rules apply here including testing if the Facilitator wants to do so, and/or Integration.

  • (f) Process Proposal: Once the Facilitator makes a Proposal to elect a candidate, the Facilitator must move to the Integrative Decision-Making Process to resolve that Proposal. However, the Facilitator must start directly with the Objection round, and, if the proposed candidate is present, the Facilitator must ask the candidate for Objections last. If any Objections are raised, the Facilitator may choose to process them normally, or to discard the Proposal either immediately after the Objection round or at any point during the integration step. If the Facilitator opts to discard the Proposal, the Facilitator must go back to the prior step in this process, discard all nominations for the prior candidate, and follow the rules of the prior step to select another candidate to propose instead.

 

Bien à toi,

Bernard Marie

Xavier Boëmare
03/11/2017

Hi Jean-Michel, Bernard Marie,

If you allow me to step in...

We're starting to get some objections on Elections, and indeed it's not "natural" to me (yet ?) to handle those as Facilitator.

(1) What I'm struggling with is the integration : How do you integrate when there's only two ways out : Elected or not ? The concept of integration is to amend a proposal so both proposer and objector can get out with tension and objection solved. But here there's no amendment possible, but to propose a new candidate. So what's the point of integration here ?

(2) So if I'm not going to integration, if there's a valid objection I remove the candidate and go to the next one. The last time it happened the next one was the objector of the first candidate. Felt weird to me, almost like that candidate made a smart move to get elected. But unless I missed something, nothing was wrong, and the candidate got elected. What would you have done ? Other possibilities ?

Regards,

Xavier.