I do agree that elements from this thread and this one on gamifying Holacracy could definitely merge, but I believe there’s one primary distinction – in my case at least – which is the difference in target group.
[@mention:523162737680436711], please correct me if I’m wrong, you are thinking of training materials for partners that have gone through some training or reading on Holacracy beforehand and want to keep up what they have learned by utilizing “an online group of [Holacracy] Practitioners that will practice together the skills of Facilitating,” for example by running “scenarios like the Hygean one we had in the PCT.”
To [@mention:477139080146610445]’s point, in the above case, where practitioners have some experience of Holacracy, I agree with [@mention:455886150941203371] regarding there are pros/cons of doing either an abstract simulation or using existing practice at own organization – with the latter being Holacracy implementation, I believe?
My situation is a bit different. The current target group I’m aiming for are public guests visiting a 7-day graduation exhibit in April 2017 that have no clue or experience of what Holacracy is or could mean for them. So, by having them sign up for initial preset roles at a fictional, virtual organization via a multi-user web platform they will learn the basics of the Holacracy framework by engaging in a role-playing game experience.
Therefore, in my case, I believe I would go for [@mention:455886150941203371]’s notion, the “nice thing about a simulation is that people can at least get a sense of the structure/rules without the potential distraction of it being contentious/emotional stuff,” recognizing all the while that it is critical for participants to engage actively with their fictional role in order to authentically sense tensions.
Hence, I believe, it is important for the simulations to include operational work for tensions to naturally surface that then can be processed in tactical/governance meetings – i.e. frame the fictional organization within the Holacracy feedback-loop of sensing tensions based on “stuff coming in” and then doing something about them using the processes.
I’m currently experimenting with various themes of organizations by initially structuring known ones within a Holacracy structure. For example, the “Pandemic” board game anchor circle and its contained roles might be something like this:
- Anchor Circle (no Lead Link)
— Purpose: “To develop cures and prevent disease outbreaks, before four diseases contaminate humanity”
— Accountabilities: Doing total of 4 actions (moving from city to city / curing diseases by removing disease cubes / sharing knowledge / build a research station / discover cures / using special role-sensitive accountabilities
— Accountabilities: Moving other roles (with their consent) to cities containing other roles; Moving other roles (with their consent) from city to city as if were own
— Accountabilities: Needing only four city cards of same color to Discover Cure
— Accountabilities: Doing Share Knowledge *to* another role without having the city card match location, on either turn
— Accountabilities: Removing all Disease cubes of same color in single action; Preventing and removing cured disease cubes simply by being in affected location
— Accountabilities: Taking five actions per turn
The above might be too shoehorn-y for I would need to implement the rules of the board game and tweak them to include governance and tactical meetings. It might be easier to develop a fictional organization with its own operational work to let tensions surface.
Lastly, I’m keenly aware of my bias and assumptions that a simulation of a desk-job context would not be fantastical enough for Holacracy-oblivious users to engage in their own time outside of the exhibit. What do you guys think?