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

On Call Role

On our proposal on call engineer role has accountability of being available 24/7. This has raised objection from several partner, saying that this would be breach of employment contract with regards to working hour. 

But is this a valid objection, as the one raising the objection didn't know which role has the objection, he objects as a partner. 

What should we do in such situation?

8 Replies
awo
08/28/2017

Governance doesn't commit resources. This ROLE may have an expectation on it to be available 24/7 - but it could be filled by multiple people, who between them provide continuous coverage in a legally compliant way. 

 

Fajar Firdaus
08/28/2017

Does it mean that we cannot use "standing by 24/7 to response client's question" as accountability? Because this sentence address the tension of the needs to do so by engineer (proposer)

Margaux
08/28/2017

Hey,

 

Many thoughts on that:

1/ “Being available” is not an on going activity, therefor not a valid accountability - you could object NVGO

2/ A role is always available - the person filling the role may not

In your specific case, I guess the tension is to make sure that there is always someone filling the Engineer role. In this case, if you are the Lead Link, you can assign this role to multiple persons with different focus - you are still constrained by the work agreement because it is a legal document. If as a role filler you need it, then I would suggest creating a policy like “There must always be someone filling the engineer role so the service doesn't stop” (not proper I am sure but you can get the sense).

 

As a Facilitator though, you can't judge objections. So I would go to integration and try to explain that to the objectors to see if given that, the objection is still relevant.

Fajar Firdaus
08/28/2017

Thank you Margaux, especially point 1.

However for the policy, could you please enlighten me how to apply this? knowing that in employment contract, employee has a fixed office hours but this always available policy doesn't comply to it. Or should the proposer ask legal role to change employment contract as a project first ? And only after that we can proceed with the "on call role"?

Margaux
08/28/2017

I am not saying that a person should be available 24/7. By this policy, I am constraining the Lead Link who should assign enough person to make sure this role is filled 24/7. Does it make sense?

Fajar Firdaus
08/28/2017

I see. I think I am starting to understand now. Thank you

awo
08/28/2017

It would work for me to have this accountability as you original stated it because it's making something important clear: that in your organisation on-call support needs to be available 24/7. Governance for me is all about setting clear expectations. Now - how you go about making this happen? That's a tactical issue. And maybe part of that tactical work includes looking at employment law, contacts etc. 

Jean-Michel Gode
08/28/2017

Hi Fajar,
A short contribution from my perspective.

"Responding to the client" is an constitutional accountability.

"Responding to the client by 24/7 " sounds unconstitutional, as it defines the way the accountability has to be enacted. => NVGO

I join Margaux comment. A way to precise the 24/7 availibility needed is to adopt a policy.

Impacts on the employement law contracts are not due to Holacracy, just to the real life and the 24/7 availability demand. Holacracy space is just about organizing the work. Law contract topics are part of the "association" space :  the relationship beetwen the company and the employees. It's a kind of "ressource individual agreement"

Hope that helps.