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

Multi-filled Roles

Hey everybody

Yesterday I learned, that when the LL of the circle excludes roles from the meeting, they don't get the proposals from "out of governance". I was a little bit surprised, because so they don't get involved in the process of governance. They just get the information-mail, what kind of proposal was accepted. 

In general this possibility from the LL, that he can exclude roles from a meeting, for me disagrees with Holacracy. Someone else can decide, if you are allowed to involve yourself. Why it must be defined, that you are exclued? You can anyway decide if you wanna join the meeting. For me it seems like a instrument, if that LL's doesn't wants the people in the meetings. What distrubs me is this power of the LL and reminds me of a chief. I think nobody would join, if it makes really no sense for him. And if somebody gets a tention, that it'should be to often, you can bring it as a normal tention  and find a solution.  

What do you think?

And is it correct that you can exlude all people of the multi-fill role out of the meetings?  In this way, the whole role doesn't has a "voice" in the circle.

I'm really curious about your oppinions.

Thanks in advance.

 

 

4 Replies
Jean-Michel Gode
08/16/2017

Hi Yasmin,

Sounds that the Holacracy Constitution articles 2.3.2 EXCLUSION FOR MULTI-FILLED ROLES and 2.3.3 EXCLUSION FOR MINOR ALLOCATIONS should clarify your point.

Regards.

Tyler Danke
08/17/2017

Yasmin, There are roles and role assignments that are energized by 10 minutes a week or an hour a year. One example we have is a role for Proofreader. They only do their work very minimally. They don't spend much time in the role so the Lead Link doesn't want them at the meetings. If they have something that they needs to be brought up they can do so through the Rep Link, Lead Link, or any other role in the circle that is related to their work. Regarding self-regulation, I have seen circle members attend meetings when there was no need for them to do so. They literally will come to meetings with zero words of input or even interacting with the content of the meeting after the meeting.

Another example in our organization (that we haven't used but I could see us doing in the future) is Customer Service Rep. If there are 20 people who take phone calls in the organization, not all of them need to come to a meeting, and honestly, all of them can't come to a meeting otherwise, who would answer phones? In my 5 years of experience of leaving it up to each person the answer is that occasionally we will have the same people choose to take calls during meetings every time which does not bring in a variety of opinions and actually the people that we want to hear from are the type of people that would be out of the meeting and on the phone anyway, so it makes sense for the lead link to be able to say which CSR is in the meeting and which is not.

Tyler Danke
08/17/2017

One thing to know is that Holacracy is not just bottom up. There is also a healthy top down component to Holacracy. It is both bottom up and Top down aligned very well together. It is distributed authority, not simply grassroots.

Folkert Ringnalda
08/17/2017

If this 'excluded' role has a tension of being excluded, that role can bring this tension to the governance meeting.