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

Objection about resources allocation

Hello CoP Members,

 

I've got a question about the IDM process in a governance meeting and the criterias of a valid objection.

I wonder if a Lead Link can object about resources allocation / role assignment in a governance meeting. I know there are lots of different scenarios so it is a very general question but if you have any concrete examples it would be great.

I can try a specific question: can a Lead Link object - when creating a role or adding an accountability to an existing role - that she/he cannot assign the role afterwards because there would be no more fit for role with the current human resources and thus it would cause harm?

 

Thanks,

13 Replies
Kræn Hansen
03/24/2016

Hi Margaux,

To me, role assignment seems to be more of a tactical matter.

When the role has been created in governance the Lead Link might simply choose to not assign an individual to the role or assign it to someone and establish that it is outside of the circles current priorities (the constitutions section 2.2.2 determines that the LL "Defines Priorities & Strategies") to spend too much time on addressing that specific time-consuming accountability.

Bernard Marie Chiquet
03/24/2016

Margaux,

To your question "can a Lead Link object - when creating a role or adding an accountability to an existing role - that she/he cannot assign the role afterwards because there would be no more fit for role with the current human resources and thus it would cause harm?"

Answer may be yes, for instance if the LL need two separate roles instead of only one as he has got data that show he would degrade his capacities for assignment.

Happy to share other cases, i've encountered...

Margaux
03/24/2016

@Kraen, I know that but the answer is more subtle. If it was that easy, we could (as facilitators) just drop any objection re resources allocation by saying “let's just pretend we have all the right resources and time in the world, do you still have that objection?” which is false and against reality...

@Bernard Marie, I agree with that but any other example that may apply?

Jean-Michel Gode
03/24/2016

HI Margaux,

From my perspective, LL's objection would be not valid, as it refers to allocating resources within the circle. Just same as "I object to add accountability to a role I fill already because I won't have time enough to do it..."

The role is created to better express the purpose of the company and add clarity to the organisation. This is a minimal step formard, even if the role remains uncorrectly filled.

Happy to share your thoughts,
Best.

 

Eric Babinet
03/24/2016

Hi Margaux, 

Brian gave an example like like this at the Seattle PCT yesterday. He described a scenario where the proposal was to add an additional accountability to a role and the Lead Link objected because it would make the role impossible to fill due to the combination of skill sets that would be required. At least for that scenario he considered it to be a valid objection from the Lead Link.

-Eric

Bernard Marie Chiquet
03/24/2016

Yes Eric,

This is exactly the case I mentioned previously !

Margaux
03/24/2016

@Eric, thanks. It confirms what I was thinking, perfect! 

Kræn Hansen
03/24/2016

I read your question again - and I understand now that the objection was not if the organisation had enough resources but if it had the right resources to take on a complex role. Interesting perspective.

Dennis Ross
03/24/2016

@Eric, great example.  I can see several ways the objection could be managed in the integration round...  i.e. split the work into several roles so that the lead link could fill.  

It is often easier to validate an objection and trust the process to resolve the issue in the integration round.

- Dennis

 

Bernard Marie Chiquet
03/24/2016

@Dennis spot on !

Fred Magovern
03/25/2016

@Dennis + @Bernard: Do you guys relax the testing criteria for objections sometimes? That sounds like the implication of what you're saying. #surprised

Dennis Ross
03/25/2016

@Fred.  From my perspective, the criteria were not relaxed (in the example), rather the Lead Link was able to express why/how the proposal would cause harm or move the circle backward (i.e. creation of a role that couldn't possibly be filled, regardless of the resources available). 

 

Bernard Marie Chiquet
03/26/2016

Yep @Fred A Objection is a reason why adopting the proposal would cause harm or move us backwards. In such case - and there are others I've encountered - such proposal would cause harm to the circle as it would limit the Leak Link Role in his capacities for assigning people.