Does assigning mean that lead link can decide who will be the best fit and request the person for that role, and the person asked to take up a role can say no to it and there is no obligation to take the role to them. I remember, brian saying that there is no slavery, guess he means what i have said above. Is there a way to see this explained or expressed in the constitution?
Posted in Practicing Holacracy •
By shammi nanda •
03/09/2019
Meaning of 'assign' for the lead link role.
4 Replies
Chris Cowan
03/11/2019
03/11/2019
[@mention:568484858377802720] There are a few other sections needed.
1.2 which says, "As a Partner of the Organization, you have the following responsibilities for each Role that you are assigned to and agree to fill..."
And 3.4, which gives everyone the right to use their own best judgment... "As a Partner of the Organization, you may use your reasonable judgment to interpret this Constitution and any Governance within the Organization, including how these apply within a specific situation, and then act based on your interpretation."
Finally, the Lead Link's domain of "Role assignments within the Circle," is what actually prevents anyone else from assigning someone to a role (including yourself), which is really the thing that gives the Lead Link role-assignment power, not the accountability.
I hope that helps!
shammi nanda
03/11/2019
03/11/2019
Thanks Chris, I like the idea of domain of the lead link and its not an accountability. I see that the domain is "Role assignments within the Circle", yet in the accountabilities in glass frog its also written in the section under accountabilities - " Assigning Partners to the Circle’s Roles; monitoring the fit; offering feedback to enhance fit; and re-assigning Roles to other Partners when useful for enhancing fit".
I am a bit confused, why is also written in the accountability, or does it mean its trying to explain the domain, in terms of what it means.
Shammi
Chris Cowan
03/13/2019
03/13/2019
[@mention:568484858377802720] Ah! So, they do two different things. Domains prevent others from doing impacting/doing it without permission. But if you only had that, then there'd be no expectation that the Lead Link DO anything specifically with that power, which is why the accountability is needed.
So, if you imagine the accountability doesn't exist, only the domain, then as a circle member I could ask the Lead Link to take a project to fill a newly created role and the Lead Link could say, "Not my accountability." Then you could ask to impact the domain of "role-assignments," and you'd probably get the permission to do so yourself, but all of that is unnecessary because the intended expectation on the Lead Link is consciously and proactively consider assigning role-fillers to roles.
Does that make sense?
shammi nanda
03/13/2019
03/13/2019
Dear [@mention:455886150941203371], It makes a lot of sense. The idea of boundaries that its for the lead link to be playing in and others cant enter it and at the same time to bring the proactivity is brought by accountability. Appreciate your understanding and wisdom.
Shammi