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

No partner to fill the role - is it a valid objection?

Hello, 

what do you think, is it a valid objection during governance meeting, that there no one to fill the newly defined role.

Obejction comes from tension of a Lead Link, who will be held responsible for the role untill partner is assigned to this role. But he knows, that there is no partner with the competence to fill the role.

What would you do as a facilitator?

Thank you in advance,

 

Ivan

11 Replies
Xavier Boëmare
05/15/2018

Hi,

With the elements you gave, I would consider this objection as valid, coming from the LL.

Usually, what I've seen the most is that the issue is the role proposed as a whole. And the common solution I experienced during integration is the split of the purpose/accountabilities of that role into multiple roles (or into existing roles) so that the LL can find partners to fit in.

Does it help ?

 

Ivan Matosyan
05/17/2018

Hello [@mention:491495232183315418],

Thank you for your reply. 

I think you approach is applicable in some cases, will keep it in mind.

But I still have unclarity about tension/objection from a Lead Link, he then actually can object to any new accountability or a role, because he will think there is no competent person to fill it. But then solution will be to withdraw him from this role by Lead Link of a Super-Circle.

Ivan

Bernard Marie Chiquet
05/17/2018

[@mention:576648489231374882] In such case, I would recommend to create a new role and then find somebody who has the best fit for such work. And face reality in case there is no or low skills to fill such job. Nothing to do here with Holacracy. To run any business, you need skills. And bringing such skills into the org. is work by itself - could be done by training or hiring. Or decide not to do such new work as a consequence of a conscious choice.

Juliane Martina Röll
05/17/2018

>what do you think, is it a valid objection during governance meeting, that there no one to fill the newly defined role.

Unless the objector can clearly state why creating the role will cause harm, it is not a valid objection. 

And as creating a Role does not bind any resources, it will probably be hard to argue this point - but that's not for outside people to judge.

In any case, in practise, you can always move to integration: the tension that lead to proposing the new role to be created still needs to be addressed. The objecting partner has to come up with an alternative suggestion.

Tyler Danke
05/19/2018

Invalid objection. Build the stadium and someone some day will be inspired to step up to the microphone 

Ivan Matosyan
05/20/2018

[@mention:456167666726491228] Good metaphor, thank you. But until someone some day stepped up to the microphone Lead Link has to step up if prompted.

Ivan Matosyan
05/20/2018

[@mention:449833773917801859] Thank you for your point of view. I think it is about Holacracy, as it says how to do governance.

My question is more about what more experienced practitioners feels is right or good way how to handle it from their experience.

A. As a Lead Link I feel a tension brough by the proposal, because new defined role wont be filled. My objections is found invalid. Then at the same meeting Lead Link will have a proposal to change previously defined role.

B. As a Lead Link I feel a tension... My objection is written down. In Integration I propose change to newly defined role which will solve tension of the proposer and the Lead Link.

C. Do not object as a Lead Link, try to assign the role and fail as well not being able to fill the role myself. Then at the next meeting come up with the situation and propose change to defined role.

What you find as better solution?

Brian Robertson
05/20/2018

D.  Do not object, because this kind of objection is usually not valid for good reason, and then actually fill the role yourself until you have a better option.  There is no such thing as "not being able" to fill the role; you can fill a role with near zero time going into it, because filling a role only requires consciously defining and prioritizing work, not necessarily doing work.

Bernard Marie Chiquet
05/20/2018

[@mention:449693036223847456] Yep, I'm with you here on D. Which brings me to challenge a bit the word "to fill a role". I'm wondering if "managing a role" would not be better.

Ivan Matosyan
05/20/2018

[@mention:449693036223847456] [@mention:449833773917801859] Thank you for your replies. If D, so that Lead Link do not object or come up with a new proposal from the Lead Link role. What would you expect to happen?

D1. Original proposer will face reality, that desired accountabilities in the defined role are not carried out and will come up with a new proposal e.g. to change the role. Tension is: we want something to be done from defined role, which is not done as it is not filled, Lead Link gives lowest priority to the task as he has no expertise to perform it.

D2. Someone else than original proposer, but not Lead Link, will come with a new proposal to change the role. Tension: same as above

D3. No reletated proposal will be brought to the governance, role wont be filled for the time being.

Juliane Martina Röll
05/23/2018
Bernard Marie Chiquet posted:

[@mention:449693036223847456] Yep, I'm with you here on D. Which brings me to challenge a bit the word "to fill a role". I'm wondering if "managing a role" would not be better.

Ah, lovely!

I notice that I usually speak of "holding" a role (rather than of "filling" it).

In German, one can differentiate between "eine Rolle innehaben", "eine Rolle füllen" and "eine Rolle halten".