I need some help in interpreting the validity of an objection.
I proposed to delete a role X (Human development) from a circle C (SEKEM Holding). My tension was that we recently created another sub circle Y (capacity building) at another circle B (cultural life), which is similar in terms of its purpose. Both circles B and C are only indirectly linked because they have the same anchor circle A (SEKEM). To formulate it in another way: SEKEM (anchor circle) has four circles (economic life, cultural life, societal life, and ecology). The sub circle economic life has the sub circle SEKEM Holding, which has the role human development. The sub circle cultural life has the sub circle capacity building.
From a purpose point of view the role Y (capacity building) has a “better fit” within its super circle (because cultural life is about human development in general) than circle X (because Economic Life/SEKEM Holding are more about Value Creation). The issue is that people got used to the circle X because it is around longer and it has more detailed accountabilities.
The objection (Objection 1) was as follows: We cannot let the role and accountabilities fall out of circle C because then no-one would feel responsible for it anymore.
Question 1: Is this a valid objection because actually within the whole organization (SEKEM) there would still be another circle taking care of a comparable purpose like the one role to be removed?
Another objection (Objection 2) was raised: The circle Y (capacity building) is not very “real”, i.e. recently founded and the lead link of the super circle (cultural life) is not very active and experienced in this field. So it would be much more realistic to have the circle X (human development).
Question 2: Is this a valid objection because you cannot argue with people as being a resource issue/ tactical tension.
Hope that things got clear for you! Don’t hesitate to ask questions!