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

Online practice group - follow up's and basics

Hi all,

We just had a  first online practice group with [@mention:527948166491091727], [@mention:526540758988153729], [@mention:474746343788652082] coached by [@mention:523162737680436711]. It was a great learning experience. Thanks to Tom for guiding us and for all the rest for a great practice.

After the session I had some basic questions and I figured that I could share them for shared benefit. It would also be great if others would follow-up their questions and concerns.

> facilitators reaction

Should facilitator roles react? They are full members of the circle so they have the right and if the person in this role also hold any other roles they should react from that roles. But should a facilitator as a role react during reaction round?

> policy that should be a domain

We had a case that we worked on a policy that should really be a domain. I figure that the facilitator should go into "coaching" mode and explain the proper use of domain and policies here. Do correct me if I am wrong.

> facilitator objection

My take is that if the facilitator does not hold any other role in the circle HIS only objection can be an NVGO.

Again thanks,

56 Replies
Tom Mulder
11/03/2017

Hi Konrad, as I left early I did not take part in the actual session. Great to see that you liked it.

Here some answers to your questions:

The Facilitator also reacts during Reaction Round. Most of the time I try to use it to coach the Partners on how Holacracy works based on the tension that is there.

The Policy vs Domain is often addressed on the CoP. If the Facilitator feels that a Partner might want a Domain instead of Policy then the Facilitator can use the Clarifying question round to get more insight. F.e. do you want to restrict all circle members to impact this? And then I would use Reaction Round to explain what the difference is between a Domain and a Policy. The Proposer can than change his/her Proposal based on this learning

The Facilitator may object based on current knowledge he/she has so it is possible that a Facilitator who is not having any roles in the Circle objects. I agree with you that most of the time the objections come from NVGO as the Facilitator has the role to safeguard the Process.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Tom 

Konrad Olesiewicz
11/03/2017

Thanks Tom,

Your answer are much helpful and appreciated.

Best,

Konrad Olesiewicz
11/06/2017

So today we had a very nice though private practice group with [@mention:550889693769022824] and [@mention:493465881837995141] as the coach. Some of the people had to do some firefighting at work and could not attend.  Your loss - Ewa gives some kickass detailed feedback Thanks guys.

On that note if anyone knows any coaches or is a coach and would like to shadow any of the practice groups please do post here od let me know.

An interesting basic bit I had the occasion to learn today.

> even the reactions need to be focused

So, as it turns out, as a Facilitator,  it's important to keep the reactions focused on the proposal and to cut-off any reaction to reaction and redirect the attention on the process. For once it is written in the v. 4.1 Constitution 3.3.5 (c) but even if you think about it you want the attention and energy to go into the Proposers Tension as it is the most important thing on the plate at this moment.

Thanks and looking forward to the next practice!

Brian Robertson
11/10/2017

Careful with that one; you do want to cut off clear reactions to reactions, but don't try to keep a reaction focused on the proposal; as long as they're not reacting directly to another reaction, the reactor has the full authority to share whatever is coming up for them, even if you the facilitator don't see it as connected to the proposal...

Konrad Olesiewicz
11/13/2017

Wow, thanks! Much appreciated.

Best,

 

Konrad Olesiewicz
11/13/2017

So today, we had yet another great session with [@mention:548355922639373031], [@mention:534281552617879089] and [@mention:474746343788652082]. Again thanks to everyone who participated. I have some following reflections.

> cutting people off quicker

Phew, and I thought that on-site that is a tough one. Being on-line takes it to a whole new level where you can't use your presence and body language to redirect attention to the proper person. One thing is the physical side, the other is emotional to get in the habit of confidence and trusting that all have accepted the same ruleset and want to follow it (more or less).

> finding in-process learning/pathways vs. doing coaching time-outs balance

It's my habit to occasionally do time-out to do a bit of in process coaching on Holacracy rules. On reflection I see it's probably best to include the option of the time-out in the initial facilitation framing so that people can ask question if they really need to and focus on showing them what they can do and what are their pathways in the current situation. So that to get a good mix of supporting good meeting habits and teaching Holacracy rules in a way not to overwhelm them during a meeting nor to loose it's momentum but still get the message across.

Thanks!

Konrad Olesiewicz
11/28/2017

So. Back to practice. Today we had a short but nice practice with [@mention:563839477050140014] and [@mention:550889693769022824]. Thanks guys! It would be great if more people would join the groups thought Some reflection.

> Objection round the proposer also states objections

So, we had this question about weather the Facilitator should ask the Proposer if he also has any objection. We glanced through the Constitution and did not find specifics. We partly concluded, partly recalled from HPT that this true when the Proposer has additional roles than the one that is presenting the proposal (which is often true). This is beneficial two-fold. On one hand it reminds the Proposer of a larger context of other roles he might have missed. On the other hand it reinforces the "people are not roles" principle.

> "skill list" for facilitators

Also. Do you believe that there is kind of a "skill list" on the base of a Facilitator could be evaluated? What makes a good facilitator?

Few examples include:

- frames the rounds

- takes time to explain Holacracy rules when team members in confusion

- shows paths of actions to confused team members

- cut's off efficiently and neutrally

Any other reflections on that are more than welcome

Best regards and see you on next practice!

Nick Osborne
11/29/2017

Regarding the skill base of the Facilitator, Chris Cowan of HolacracyOne who designs and delivers the Governance Assessments created this set of short videos which explores some of the skills and attitudes for good facilitation of Governance at https://blog.holacracy.org/a-b...eetings-c0929f1ff90f

Konrad Olesiewicz
12/12/2017

Today we had a nice compact session with [@mention:563839477050140014] and Sjoerd Sijbesma. Thanks guys.

> "deadline" in an accountability - also maybe a policy?

We were tackling a problem with Website being taken off by the Website Admin in the middle of a Sales promo and one of the roles requested for the Admin to have an accountability of informing 3 weeks in advance when the website is going to be down. I would love to hear you view on this.

>> "deadline"

Is the rigid "3 weeks" ok or is it a bit "deadlineish" and it should something more like "as soon as possible" to accent the autonomy of the role to pick their own priorities?

>> policy

Also maybe it should be better for it to be the circle's policy not an accountability?

Any feedback welcome

Best regards,

Francesco Lomonaco
12/13/2017
Konrad Olesiewicz posted:

> Objection round the proposer also states objections

So, we had this question about weather the Facilitator should ask the Proposer if he also has any objection. We glanced through the Constitution and did not find specifics. We partly concluded, partly recalled from HPT that this true when the Proposer has additional roles than the one that is presenting the proposal (which is often true). This is beneficial two-fold. On one hand it reminds the Proposer of a larger context of other roles he might have missed. On the other hand it reinforces the "people are not roles" principle.

 

I know it sounds weird to ask the proposer if he has objections (even if he does not have other roles), however, I found useful to say that it is a way to change your own mind. That posture allowed to have a couple of times the Proposer objecting after having heard other objections that triggered other thoughts. Everyone appreciated.

In any case, I agree with you that the option of objecting to their own proposals should be further clarified in the Constitution.

Jasper Rienstra
12/14/2017

What I also really like about the proposer having the possibility to raise objections is that it makes it really, really! safe to come up with a proposal quickly – no need to be ‘sure’ it is perfect or even workable. Knowing that there will be an opportunity to ‘step back and listen’ to the proposal & objections in the objection round, and consider the proposal again, this time not from a ‘how does it resolve my tension’ position but from a ‘does it cause any harm’ position.

Konrad Olesiewicz
12/19/2017

Today we had practice with [@mention:563839477050140014], [@mention:573270378663965046] and Toon Franken. The group is getting more cohesive at this point and we are starting to do more complex facilitation cases. Thanks for a great practice guys!

One of the things caught our attention.

> Objection testing and "reasonable" aegument

We had a case that a role had problems with communicating what is the harm under hers objection. The facilitator offered structure by repeating the "what's the harm" for a few times to unstuck the process but it also occurred to us that we could refer to section 3.2.5 of the Constitution. It says that "(...) the Objector must be able to present a resonable argument (...)". So based on that the facilitator could say something like "this does not sound reasonable and according to the Constitution we will not process this Objection as it does not meet the reasonability threshold". Not nice as it is

Does anyone had any real-life situation that we used this section or has any comments about this?

> Giving coaching "advice" during reaction round vs. "time-outing"

Also I personally found useful to give my coach-reaction to a proposal (for example it should be a policy etc.) during the reaction round instead of having a time-out not to break the flow of the process when not needed as it's a bit more of an IPL (in process learning) this way. Any comments on this and preserving the flow of the meeting are welcome.

Best!

Konrad Olesiewicz
12/22/2017

We had an abundance of practitioners today We did a nice training with [@mention:563839477050140014], [@mention:573692591169355705], [@mention:527948166491091727], Dathane Turner  and Toon Franken. We experienced a lot of styles and different energies of facilitation. Thanks guys!

From more interesting bits.

> inability to object (and thus later integrate) to ones proposal

We had a situation where one person presented a proposal to address a Tension coming out of his roles. The proposal was to add an accountability to a Role that would address the issue. Then during the objection round the Proposer became the Objector and said that there is a person better suited for this accountability and that it would be good to change that. But the objection was dropped after testing as invalid because of wanting to help other Role. So it went through and the Proposer/Objector now would need to add a new Tension to modify his newly accepted Proposal. 

Have you had a situation like that? What do you think about it? Could the freshly accepted Proposal be modified during the same Governance meeting or it would have to wait for a new one?

> pathways during cutting off

More of a observation. One of the facilitators was very good at cutting people of quickly and sometime he gave great pathways how to direct the reaction or disruption in the process. It made me appreciate how sometimes effective is to do BOTH: cut off quickly and redirect the disturbance to either reaction round or a new Tension. Especially during the initial coaching phases or learning Holacracy.

Cheers!

 

Chris Cowan
12/23/2017

Re: > inability to object (and thus later integrate) to ones proposal

I've come across it rarely, but adding a new agenda item seems like the best pathway given what you shared. There is nothing wrong with modifying newly created governance, the only question may be whether the proposed change is based on a tension (see the criteria for a valid proposal), but usually it's fine. 

FWIW - one question to ask the proposer, "Would it still solve your tension to have this accountability added to the original role?" Because if the proposal does NOT solve the tension, then the proposer could actually raise an NVGO objection (based on the reason that, by definition, a proposal needs to resolve a tension and this proposal doesn't). Additionally, it sounds like the objection might have been based on a misunderstanding about person vs. role, rather than because they were trying to help another role, but perhaps not.  

Karilen Mays
12/27/2017
Konrad Olesiewicz posted:

We had an abundance of practitioners today We did a nice training with [@mention:563839477050140014], [@mention:573692591169355705], [@mention:527948166491091727], Dathane Turner  and Toon Franken. We experienced a lot of styles and different energies of facilitation. Thanks guys!

From more interesting bits.

> inability to object (and thus later integrate) to ones proposal

We had a situation where one person presented a proposal to address a Tension coming out of his roles. The proposal was to add an accountability to a Role that would address the issue. Then during the objection round the Proposer became the Objector and said that there is a person better suited for this accountability and that it would be good to change that. But the objection was dropped after testing as invalid because of wanting to help other Role. So it went through and the Proposer/Objector now would need to add a new Tension to modify his newly accepted Proposal. 

Have you had a situation like that? What do you think about it? Could the freshly accepted Proposal be modified during the same Governance meeting or it would have to wait for a new one?

Hi, I know I am late to the party here...sounds like some pretty specific situations which is a great opportunity for coaching and learning! Nice work everyone.

I have seen proposers come to realize they have a better way to proceed during integration. The tricky part here is that as soon as the objector realizes the objection is invalid, then it is the facilitator's job to end integration and move back to the objection round. If someone, even proposer objects facilitator has two choices: capture and proceed with the process, or test it and follow process accordingly. 

The best pathway is for the proposer is probably to add an agenda item and propose moving the accountability to the other role if they are clear it is a better way to go, and as facilitator I would likely just go to that agenda item next during the same governance meeting. It helps people since you are on the same tension and it is easier on the brain. So no, it does not need to wait for a new meeting.

From a practice perspective, it can be difficult to accept governance that one is uncertain about or knows will not be ideal. In fact in most cases it is not ideal and it takes iterating or trying it and then changing it to truly know. So it could be useful to talk about this (outside of the governance meeting); sometimes you can't know if an approach is better until you try it. 

Hope that helps.

 

 

Konrad Olesiewicz
12/31/2017

[@mention:449974511452179429], [@mention:455886150941203371]

Thanks for your replies! It is a bit nuanced I really liked the notion of doing a governance which does not resolve the Tension of the proposer to be an NVGO. It seems to nail and enforce the purpose of doing governance.

I do believe that adding an additional agenda item would be best in this case from the perspective of honouring the process. My intuition would be to just make an exception, since it's the proposer who is objecting, and just change the proposal but it would weaken the process and would create a precedent that could be hurtful for the adoption. Maybe "staying true" would also enforce the system as package thought could be viewed as "cold" or "rigid".

Anyway thanks for your view on that one! Have a great 2018!

Cheers!

Konrad Olesiewicz
01/02/2018

On the topic of basic. I have been browsing thought the constitution and wanted to ask a bit more about the following:

> 2.1.2 Roles May Impact Circle Domains

Further, you may not transfer or dispose of the Domain itself or any significant assets within the Domain, nor may you significantly limit any rights of the Circle to the Domain. However, these restrictions do not apply if a Role or process holding the needed authority grants you permission to do so.

Could anyone please give me an example of a process grating a Role permission to dispose/transfer a whole or a part of a Domain? Any other comments on this are most welcome.

> 2.2.3 Amending the Lead Link Role

A Circle may not add Accountabilities or other functions to its own Lead Link Role, or modify the Role’s Purpose, or remove the Role entirely.

I wondered why is that the Circle cannot add an accountability to the Lead Link role? 

There are some reasons I could think of something and it goes something like that:

The general direction should be „less Lead Link the better” as he already serves as a „bucket” of undifferentiated accountabilities. In Holacracy we want to have explicit accountabilities on differentiated roles which better align the formal and requisite structures instead of having a hodge-podge of a Role. Since we already know the accountability the want to add to LL we can look if it fits any other existing Role and if not, we can create a matching Role and it’s purpose. The LL will have to assign a person to energise the Role anyway. That is also the reason why assigning the LL accountabilities to other Roles is „ok” since its LL accountability and Domain to guard the Person/Role fit.

Please do let me know if you find this reasonable and in line with Holacracy logic.

Thanks in advance and have a great day!

Chris Cowan
01/03/2018

[@mention:564684143600201011]

"Could anyone please give me an example of a process grating a Role permission to dispose/transfer a whole or a part of a Domain? Any other comments on this are most welcome." Disposing of..." falls under the rules for resource allocation, which by default belong to the Lead Link of the circle. The stipulation that you can't dispose of a domain just because you control it, is to cover situations in which a role has a "website" domain, but that doesn't give them the authority to sell the website or domain to someone else. On the other hand, if a role had a domain like, "List of approved vendors," but things changes such that you no longer needed vendors, then it seems reasonable that the domain owner could delete that list. So the distinction is really to cover assets. 

"Why you don't add to Lead Link (LL)..." You nailed it. One addition, since we are pushing against the paradigm of "manager is leader" then it's particularly important to have an explicit rule that prevents you from making that role more confusing. 

Konrad Olesiewicz
01/05/2018
Chris Cowan posted:

[@mention:564684143600201011]

"Could anyone please give me an example of a process grating a Role permission to dispose/transfer a whole or a part of a Domain? Any other comments on this are most welcome." Disposing of..." falls under the rules for resource allocation, which by default belong to the Lead Link of the circle. The stipulation that you can't dispose of a domain just because you control it, is to cover situations in which a role has a "website" domain, but that doesn't give them the authority to sell the website or domain to someone else. On the other hand, if a role had a domain like, "List of approved vendors," but things changes such that you no longer needed vendors, then it seems reasonable that the domain owner could delete that list. So the distinction is really to cover assets. 

"Why you don't add to Lead Link (LL)..." You nailed it. One addition, since we are pushing against the paradigm of "manager is leader" then it's particularly important to have an explicit rule that prevents you from making that role more confusing. 

[@mention:455886150941203371], thanks a bunch for your reply it clears a lot I wonder who has the right to dispose of a Domain though? I guess it would be the LL of the respective circle which own the domain or does it always goes back to the Anchor Circle (which might not have a LL if they are only Cross-Links there)?

Thanks and have a great one

Konrad Olesiewicz
01/05/2018

Today we had a great session with [@mention:523162737680436711] acting as a coach and with [@mention:573270378652500913], Toon Franken, Nick ten Brinke and [@mention:563839477050140014]. There was some great feedback and real-life tips. Some of the food for thought include:

> Balance of Coach vs. Facilitator Role during a meeting

It was a great insight to have a more differentiation of Holacracy Coach and Facilitator Role. As a Facilitator it's great to keep the process in flow and as a Coach you want to make sure there are some good in process learning opportunities and enough comment for people to stay connected. Its seems subtle to be able to sense how much of knowledge transfer is enough and one has to balance it out yourself, but it's good to know the difference.

> Cutting off discussion with a pathway

It's always a good idea to give a pathway while cutting off. For example if someone is reacting in Claryfing Questions then he can be stoped and informed that there will be space for that in the Reaction Round. The 3R's come with help:

  • R - rule - why it's not allowed to do this now (according to constitution)
  • R- reason - the reason why is that
  • R - redirect - where the need of the person can be met (other round, new Tension etc.)

Still in the Coach vs. Facilitator dynamic it's need balancing out how much 3R's there will be in a meeting as maybe it's very time sensitive and the cutting off must be very brief and decisive.

> mature vs. fresh Holacracy groups

Two tips on that:

  • With fresh groups start with yourself with Check-in round to show how a good check-in is done.
  • With fresh group during objection round do all objection testing questions, with mature groups and time sensitive meeting you can just go to a question that you feel is most appropriate for this particular Objection.

 

Cheers and good practising!

Tom Mulder
01/05/2018

[@mention:564684143600201011]

Small adjustment on the 3R

  • Rule: what is the rule
  • Reason: why of the rule
  • Redirect: provide pathways

Using your example: The rule in Clarifying Questions:  Only questions to better understand, no discussion or reactions. Reason for that is that we want everybody to have the opportunity to clearly understand the proposal before we react. So please hold, there will space for reactions later.

Was again my pleasure to enjoy the spirit and energy of new Holacracy enthusiasts.  

Chris Cowan
01/05/2018

[@mention:564684143600201011] I wonder who has the right to dispose of a Domain though? I guess it would be the LL of the respective circle which own the domain or does it always goes back to the Anchor Circle (which might not have a LL if they are only Cross-Links there)?

A) Domains and B) Assets/Resources are really two different constructs, operating at different "levels of reality" for lack of a better term. 

Meaning, domains exist the same way a map exists, and..."The map is not the territory." So, disposing of a domain simply means deleting it from governance. Boom. Gone. Domain disposed. 

The complication exists, because in some cases (but certainly not all) a domain signifies (i.e. is a label in governance to represent) a physical or re-sellable resource or asset (*sigh). 

So, it's fine to think day-to-day of something like "the website" as a conflated, singular, hybrid domain-asset thing, but we also need to make sure we can see the distinction.  

Does that make sense? (and I'm genuinely asking because I don't feel confident I explained it very well).  

Konrad Olesiewicz
01/05/2018
Chris Cowan posted:

[@mention:564684143600201011] I wonder who has the right to dispose of a Domain though? I guess it would be the LL of the respective circle which own the domain or does it always goes back to the Anchor Circle (which might not have a LL if they are only Cross-Links there)?

A) Domains and B) Assets/Resources are really two different constructs, operating at different "levels of reality" for lack of a better term. 

Meaning, domains exist the same way a map exists, and..."The map is not the territory." So, disposing of a domain simply means deleting it from governance. Boom. Gone. Domain disposed. 

The complication exists, because in some cases (but certainly not all) a domain signifies (i.e. is a label in governance to represent) a physical or re-sellable resource or asset (*sigh). 

So, it's fine to think day-to-day of something like "the website" as a conflated, singular, hybrid domain-asset thing, but we also need to make sure we can see the distinction.  

Does that make sense? (and I'm genuinely asking because I don't feel confident I explained it very well).  

[@mention:455886150941203371] Thanks! yes this it makes sense to me. The map is not the territory does the trick so now I can differentiate better between the thing (asset) and a right to manage a thing (asset). So my question arose from that small confusion.

One can has a domain over a car (for example) still does not mean he can sell it to an 3rd party outside the org. on his own. I m just a bit puzzled about the possibilities of Roles transfering ownership of things with right policies/accountabilities etc. do you maybe know where I can read more on that?

Thanks in advance and have a good weekend,

Chris Cowan
01/06/2018

[@mention:564684143600201011] Glad it helped! 

I'm just a bit puzzled about the possibilities of Roles transferring ownership of things with right policies/accountabilities etc. do you maybe know where I can read more on that?

If you're transferring "ownership" in terms of governance then you just need to propose moving domains around. But I think you know that. 

So, if you mean processes for transferring "ownership" as in resources/money/assets, then yes, that isn't specified in the constitution. 

There are lots of threads that have addressed this, but they haven't been consolidated into a coherent answer. Makes me really want to publish one! Until then, you can read the discussion on Github about the confusion: https://github.com/holacracyon...nstitution/issues/75

In short, and prepare yourself to be dissatisfied with my explanation, the Lead Link of the broadest circle (whether that is the GCC or Anchor Circle, or whatever you call it) is the only role that has any authority over spending money/disposing resources (all other authorities to spend cascade from that role--meaning sub-circle Lead Links can spend if given permission by the broadest Lead Link) . And that authority is implied, because by definition that Lead Link is holding everything in the organization. And because the delegation of a domain does NOT include the authority to dispose of resources, then the only way anyone can spend money other than the "broadest" Lead Link, is to be given explicit permission to do so. This could be oral permission from that role even, or in H1's case, we have a policy that authorizes the GCC Lead Link to spend money, because our Anchor Circle is our broadest circle. 

Again, check out the Github thread for a better explanation. 

Konrad Olesiewicz
01/12/2018

[@mention:455886150941203371], this is exactly what I was looking for! Thanks. So basically it all boils down to the LL of the Anchor Circle and later cascaded down with policies. I guess it is because of the legal environment/framework in which we operate and it's legit but I also wonder if people at Encode.org have some other solutions given they heavily work with the legal side of doing a Holacratic company.  Would appreciate any insight about this

Thanks in advance and wishing a good day.

Konrad Olesiewicz
01/12/2018

So getting back to practice. I did some self study a few days back and was working with a series of videos about meeting facilitation: A Better Way to Facilitate Holacracy® Governance Meetings by [@mention:455886150941203371] (thanks for doing those!)  which I really recommend to everybody. It's a wealth of tips and fresh perspectives on the topic (I am not being paid for the endorsement  I'll just share a few things just proved to be very valuable to shape my thinking:

-- Genreal

  • Facilitation is all about PRESENT PROPOSAL and OBJECTION rounds
    • it is the place where most action takes place thus required good balance between "protecting the proposer" and "encouraging the objector" attitude, if we do just the first thing the learning experience for the team will be less effective then it could be, this also implies that we need to get comfortable with objections
  • Facilitators are facilitating the PROCESS not the PEOPLE
    • the process facilitates the people so there should be minimum Time-outs and more using objection round to convey learning experience as the extension to bring more "balance" between PROPOSAL and OBJECTION.

-- Clarifying Questions

  • Here I found a great Reason (from 3R's see threads above)  while cutting of people in CQ round to explain that this round is about GATHERING INFORMATION and not CONVEYING INFORMATION.

-- Reaction Round

If I would put a label in what inspired me here it would be OBJECTION is KING but to get more specific:

  • It’s about OTHERS GETTING THINGS OFF their chest and sense if they will have an Objection.
  • It’s not neseccasry to give a reaction, because the Proposer might want to integrate in Amend & Clarify which should can be done in Integration round where there is more space for real interaction and generative discussion.

-- Amend & Clarify

  • Stick to the fact that it’s all about PROPOSER'S TENSION. Do not create an illusion he should integrate the Reactions. There will be more juice and fuel for Objection round.

-- Objection

  • It’s all about RESPECTING the opinion and PERSPECTIVE of OTHERS and creating a frame of Objection being valuable is crucial.
  • Try to lower the bar for people to give Objections for example by stating that "If you don't like the idea, object it and we will test it and integrate it together".

Much more is in the actual article, which I highly recommend  

 

Konrad Olesiewicz
01/16/2018

OK! So today we had a very nice practice with [@mention:563839477050140014], [@mention:573692591169355705] and Toon Franken. Amongst others, a few things were worth mentioning:

> Testing the same objection by different people

We has a proposal in which the proposer wanted to add a "Website" Domain to his Role and various other Roles raised objections stating they will not be able to update and clients will have obsolete data. After first testing and validating the Objection it was obvious that all objection will be valid based as they had same Tensions behind them. The facilitator did not test all of them based on this assumption. In one way it was a "breach" of the rigour, on the other it made sense and "felt right" to do so not to be "silly". I wonder what is your take on this? Maybe it is OK with advanced groups only or so?

> Adding policies on fresh Domains

Again we had a proposal in which we wanted to add a Domain to a Role and during integration round the participants agreed to leave the Domain be if we add some Policies to the Domain of the Role. We also know that the Domian-holder can add his own Policies how to impact his Domain. We assumed it should be done right away during the integration round.

How can this be done technically in Glassfrog technically since the Domain in not there and it does not yet show in the "Affects Domain" drop-down list in Add Policy/Edit window ? 

Also how later can the Domain holding Role add policies to this domain? It it async governance or the Domain holding Role can do it when it wishes so?

Thanks in advance and take care!

Chris Cowan
01/16/2018

On this issue, "Testing the same objection by different people." For something like adding a domain of website, there are likely many roles which may object based on what they need. But those would be different objections and therefore would need to be tested independently.

For example, a role that's accountable for "Publishing new blog posts on the website," (likely valid objection) has a different argument than another role with an accountability for, "Marketing events" (likely invalid objection because "Marketing events," doesn't necessarily determine that this role would need unimpeded access to the website without having to ask for permission). 

If it was actually the same objection, it would be something like, "this proposal limits the Blogger role's ability to publish blogs." But Anyone not in the Blogger role wouldnt be able to pass criteria #4 of course. Just one quick thought. 

 

 

Konrad Olesiewicz
01/26/2018

Wow, did we had an incredible practice today, we had to check the constitution twice and the secretary had to give an interpretation Thanks [@mention:461938744820271526] and [@mention:573692591169355705]!

Few issues:

> How new Domain with policy on it in Glassfrog in one proposal?

During govenance we added a new Domain and would want for it appear with already a Policy in place but the software does not seem to allow it. How do you do it?

> LL as surogate for absent memebers during Governance

We had a Role missing. LL filled the gap and acted from that role. Has no permission form that Role. Section 4.2.4. states that LL can act within that role to cover the gap but it says only about tactical. Secretary gave interpretation that LL can do this thought facilitator was a bit reluctant as it would not meet the 4th testing question (helping other Role of Circle in general) but Secretary Interpretation Trumps (3.4.1). We went to integration and it all went good. How would you deal?

> How do you change you framing on second Tension?

It does makes sense to shorten the framing after a full round. How do you do? Skip farming in general and just name the rounds and only remind when something is "out of line", do full framing or something in between?

> Droping Governance proposal because of agreed Tactical output

While integrating Objections all parties agreed that it's better to have a meeting regarding the question which became a next-action. They decided to drop the Proposal alltogether and it resolved the Porposers Tenstion. For me as Facilitator it seems fine. The questions are:

  1. Is ot OK from Constitutional viewpoint?
  2. Should the Next-action be catured somewhere or is it something that the Proposer need to remember and to later on?

Thanks in advance!

Chris Cowan
01/26/2018

• How new Domain with policy on it in Glassfrog in one proposal?

Two scenarios (not sure which one you had). #1. The proposal was to delegate a domain to a role + add a policy on the Circle as a whole. In this case, GlassFrog doesn't make it easy to connect them, so you just record both. It's still valid and in general not too confusing. (e.g. domain of "customer order filling process" and circle policy "all customer orders must be filled within 24 hours") 

#2. A domain is delegated to a role + the role would like to add a policy to it's newly granted domain (i.e. in this case, the policy is on the role, not the circle as a whole). The first part is fine, but the second part isn't a  governance decision for the circle. 

• LL as surrogate for absent members during Governance

Since the Lead Link IS the whole circle in some sense, that role will automatically pass the 4th criteria question because the role IS the circle. So, anything that falls through the cracks the Lead Link picks up, as in the case of absent role-fillers in a meeting who aren't there to object. 

• How do you change you framing on second Tension?

My preference (informed by experience), is to always provide some framing to guide the group like, "Ok, let's move on from Clarifying Questions to the Reaction Round...one at a time, no cross-talk...Steven, your reaction?" That's my minimum. I don't ever really say less than that. On the other hand, over-framing is far more common. So, most facilitators could tone it down a little after you've done a few agenda items. It also depends on how long the first one took--if it was an hour long agenda item, then you'll want to re-orient the group as you go through the second one). I find this to be true even with experienced groups because; 1) there is usually at least one person who is still learning the process; 2) I want participants to be free to let their attention wander -- that's fine -- I'll just help them and the group by bringing their attention back as we go.  

• Dropping Governance proposal because of agreed Tactical output

Is it OK from Constitutional viewpoint? Sure. The constitution doesn't say anything about dropping a proposal. As a coach, I really want to understand why they are dropping it, but it's totally OK to do so. 

Should the Next-action be captured somewhere or is it something that the Proposer need to remember and to later on? Never capture something like that as a group output. Because it's not. The second choice is the correct one. Tell the proposer he/she can do what they want with it going forward. I usually say something like, "(to Proposer): Do you need time to record anything on the screen to help you process this later?" Usually, they don't, but sometimes novices do, in which case, I'll call a timeout and let them make some notes, but be alert! Because there is a tendency for a discussion to break out. Just be clear, you'd like to give the proposer ONLY some time...maybe with some Secretary help (and I'll talking seconds), but that it's an operational thing for the person feeling the tension.

Sometimes I need to explain that it's just like if I went online and ordered my lunch during a governance meeting. It's fine. Do what you need to do. But it's not a part of the group's process.

Konrad Olesiewicz
02/02/2018

Back again after another practice session  with [@mention:563839477050140014], Dathon and Toon with some request for feedback and tips. On that note, a big thank you from me and the group to [@mention:455886150941203371] for all your feedback.

 

> Accoutnabilities with getting input from other roles

We have added an accountability which had "Doing X while getting input from Y". I have mixed feeling about it but I guess it is still up to Role weather to do this or not in some way but it seems like a slippery-slope back to consensus-land. Does anyone have any opinion on how to deal with it in a better way?

> Cutting off during reaction round

We had a situation that the facilitator directed one of the participants back to the point when he started rambling. It was good for the process and seemed natural at the time but at the same time it could also be good to wait for the person to just finish and count on self-realization that it was just being using up space (and others to feel how irritating it can be and do it themselves). Happy to hear opinions on that.

> NVGO Objection by Facilitator, should it be first?

We had an NVGO objection by the Facilitator. We usually facilitate that the Facilitators objection should be last to maximise the learning process, but one of the Facilitators decided to start with himself to guide the round in fear it could get messy. Any thoughts on that?

> Keeping the full question in the Objection round?

On the cards we have "Do you see any reason why adopting this proposal causes harm; objection no objection?" but sometimes we also add "or moves us backwards". Which is "more correct" to use? The longer version seems generally more useful as it opens up more space but with large meetings it's can be daunting to repeat that all over again. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance!

Chris Cowan
02/02/2018

[@mention:564684143600201011] Glad to hear it's helpful!

1. Accountabilities with getting input from other roles: e.g. "Doing X while getting input from Y." Yep, it's kinda tricky. So, 1) it's usually just fine because there are obvious cases where some role needs to be expected to get input from another role. At least that's better than, "Coordinating with..." or "Collaborating with..." At least, "get input from," is more specific.

However....2) It can easily be confusing to people because when you have accountabilities like this people may assume, "Oh, if I don't have an accountability like this, that means I don't need to gather input." But that's not true. Without an accountability, the role-filler isn't expected to seek input, but it's completely unspecified whether or not the role-filler should seek input. Meaning, there are lots of things in life we aren't expected to do but are still a good idea for me to do. So, this can convey and perpetuate a misunderstanding that one needs to document everything they do in an accountability.

To handle this, use clarifying questions (if this presents itself in the original proposal). Questions like, "What's the tension?" can help you understand whether the proposal is predictive (i.e. the proposer likely misunderstands how accountabilities work...though it's still possible it makes sense to be predictive) or adaptive (i.e. they can describe a real situation in which the role-filler didn't seek input and it created a tension for them; e.g. "Can you describe a current or past situation that would have been solved if you had this accountability on the role?")

2. Cutting off during reaction round. Ha! I love these questions! So, yeah if it felt organic in the moment then probably fine. I handle situations like this the same way I handle some tactical items. I do what I call "pace," meaning I start nodding along as they are talking...start making subtle little sounds like "hmms..." and "ummm..." and if that alone doesn't work, I'll just roll right into a prompt/question like, "Great; any more reaction? Take all the time you need..."

I find the little sounds or body language to be really helpful. It seems to happen when people are new to the process because the lack of feedback is so jarring. It's a natural human thing, so the intervention is really an attempt to subtlely support their learning of the process, while also moving things along.  

3. NVGO Objection by Facilitator, should it be first? Of course, it's a rule-of-thumb, not a constitutional rule, but integrating NVGO should be prioritized before other objections (you can read more about integrating NVGO here). 

Having the facilitator go last as a rule-of-thumb....hmmmm...to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I mean, my guess is because the facilitator usually asks himself/herself last during testing, that any objection they raise would be further down the list of charted objections, but that sequence doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the sequence of objections to integrate (other than maybe reducing perceived complication). And if the objection is truly coming from the facilitator role and not another role they hold in the circle, then NVGO is the only likely objection they'll have. So, I guess that is why my intuition went a little nutty when I think about "facilitator goes last" as a rule. What other kinds of objections have been raised by a facilitator? Just curious.  

But regardless of that, I want to respond to the justification of having the facilitator go last to "maximize learning." I don't disagree that as a facilitator there are places to hold back and let participants work things out for themselves because it's more efficient for the process and for the learning. BUT, there are also places where holding back actually works against those two goals. Sometimes getting involved and being proactive is more appropriate and is better for the learning because you're role-modeling good Holacracy practice. Integration is one of those places. 

4. Keeping the full question in the Objection round? You don't need the full question, and while it's kinda personal preference, it's also situation specific. For large groups, I may ask a longer version at first but switch to "Objection or no objection?" for the rest.

And the primary focus should be on the word "any..." as in, "Do you see any reason (at all)?" The words "harm" and "move backward" are actually a part of criteria #1, so use either one at your discretion. This also means that you could technically solicit objections by asking, "Does this proposal impact any of your roles (criteria #3); objection or no objection? " or "Does this proposal create a new issue (criteria #2); objection or no objection?" My point is that there are a lot of words you could emphasize. I suggest emphasizing "please bring up any possible issue" regardless of the specific words you use (e.g."Would you like to try an objection?" or "Do you feel any tension about the proposal?").

I'll just add that for me, I want as many objections as I can get. It truly doesn't matter if they are invalid, so there is no reason why I would want people to pre-filter their objections. That is what testing is for. So, I advise against making the solicitation question needlessly complicated or wordy. Of course, the goal isn't to trick people into raising invalid objections. I just want to make sure the proper orientation/context is set, which is: it's not up to the objector to figure all of this out in their own head.

Konrad Olesiewicz
02/09/2018

Hi all! Today we had a great practice with [@mention:573692591169355705], [@mention:577211662873788485], Toon and [@mention:523162737680436711] as the coach and it was BRUTAL Some of us are nearing certification and the practices are becoming more intense and firece good pratice and good memories everyone! Of course [@mention:455886150941203371] thats for all the rich feedback lat week.

A few takeaways.

> getting personal in Holacracy

We had several bumps in various rounds done by various facilitators with things getting to personal.

  • One instance was a proposal basing on a name of a person "Mark should lower..." instead of a Role. It could be easily handeled in Clarifyig Questions by a Facilitators question "Which Role of Mark you expect that from?"
  • Another instance was people reacting directly regarding the Proposer during Reaction Round which in turn made the Proposer feel unprotected. A simple explanation „In Holacracy we keep the reactions directed at space not at a specific person” could go a long way, even if only to comfort the Proposer.

> NVGO's reaction round coaching vs. maximising learning opportunity

Since it's often beneficial for the group and it's learning process to let an NVGO Proposal slip to Integration round there is sometimes a dilemma weather to react during the Reaction Round and mark the Proposal and na NVGO or to stay quiet and let it pass. There is a middle ground that will not make the Facilitator look sloppy or lazy and will gather the attention for in process learning of the participants. In order to do that a simple „Looks as the Proposal is na NVGO, bur don’t worry there will be an Objection Round and I will address it then" in the Reaction Round might be helpful.

Best to all and keep on practising!

Ian Forbes
02/09/2018

So I came on the call as a newbie, expecting to be an Observer. Instead I was invited to be a role player! In a case of sink or swim, I managed to paddle around, all the while learning a great deal from Heleen, Konrad, and Toon, with Tom also providing excellent coaching input. Thanks to all for the welcome. It was great to see Holacracy in action. The Facilitators, Konrad and Heleen in turn, were definitely given a run for their money, and they showed their mettle. I am looking forward to the next one now.

Best to all.

Heleen Kuiper
02/09/2018

It sure was brutal! I only hope this was the general repetition before my assessment which is supposed to suck  . A lot of learning today again, thanks [@mention:523162737680436711] for dedicating your time and wisdom (and humor!) to us. And thanks to [@mention:564684143600201011], [@mention:577211662873788485] and Toon!

Konrad Olesiewicz
02/16/2018

Great practice today with [@mention:573692591169355705], [@mention:461938744820271526], [@mention:577211662873788485] and Dathne Turner. Today we did a whole session for Helen as she is having her certification test today! This is a curtesy and tradition in the Online Practice Group to do at least one such session for a member before he goes to certification so that he can get used to a longer format We are keeping our fingers crossed! Several questions.

> Idea for 3R's in Amend & Clarify

We had a situation when the Proposer was getting lengthy in the Amend & Clarify round. He was reminded to keep it brief and to stick to the proposal, which was good and greased the wheels for the process but made the Proposer feel unprotected. For once it is not said anywhere it needs to be brief but at the same time it's also a place where, especially new, practitioners might look for consensus or be anxious after the reaction round so they might need extra comfort. So my question is what would be a good 3R (rule, reason, redirect) for such an instance to keep the process going and still protect the proposer? Maybe something like:

  • Rule: this round is focused on the Proposal
  • Reason: you do not need to address issues raised in the Reaction Round, we are focusing on resolving your Tension
  • Redirect: if someone will have a Tension wit your proposal they can voice it in the Objection round so we can move along with the process...

 

> Testing the Validity of a Proposal

According to (3.2.2) Criteria for Valid Proposals and (3.2.3) Testing Proposals a Proposal can be Valid or not and it can be tested.

  • (3.2.3) Proposer must be able to:
    • describe the Tension
    • give example of actual past of present situation which the Proposal would reduce the Tension
    • must be presented with logical manner thus reasonable

 

When such testing can be made of feedbacked ? intuitively I would say that a coaching on this can be done during Present Proposal round, reaction round but maybe it should go to Objection round? Or maybe it's only for special occasion time-out type of coaching when we are facing a breakdown of a process?

> what do if someone "sneaks" another Tension during Integration round

We had a situation that the Proposer altered the original Proposal is such a way that he added an additional Tension during Integration. As the result the Proposal was better and everybody was satisfied with it. I would say that in such a case, the Integration round is a perfect place for new ideas and Tension to pop-up and it's good to embrace them to some extent if they do not deviate from the original Tension but where is the fine line? Would welcome any thoughts on that.

Best to all!

Chris Cowan
02/16/2018

Some quick thoughts...

Idea for 3R's in Amend & Clarify - I wouldn't know how to put this into 3 R's (and I don't think a rule would really help anyway), so instead I would absolutely let the proposer take as much time they need, and they don't even need to be talking about the proposal (you don't need to be interpreting their comments). Afterall, they didn't get a reaction, so this is kinda like their reaction space. They shouldn't ever feel rushed or unprotected. 

With that said, IMO the best way to handle consensus-seeking, or objection-avoiding amendments is to remind the proposer, "Remember, no one is allowed to help you here, but that's Ok because you don't need it at this step. If people feel tension about the proposal, they'll raise an objection." Or "Remember, we just want to make sure what we have would solve YOUR tension...we may need to come up with something else, but you shouldn't worry about that at this point..." Ideally, the proposer is given clear and supportive direction about how to navigate that step. Don't assume they know what to do, and definitely don't ever convey that they're doing something wrong (it's just not helpful when compared with telling them not to worry, and equally important, WHY they shouldn't worry; i.e. "We want people to raise objections."). 

 

Testing the Validity of a Proposal - Kinda unspecified, but in my experience, it's usually best to do the testing in Clarifying Questions. Just as any other clarifying question. If I get enough data to turn my yellow flag to red, then I take a timeout to explain the rule and give them another chance to help me understand. I've only ever had one case when it actually wasn't valid, and in that situation, once I explained the rule, they immediately got it and dropped the agenda item. The big mistake here is to mistake a proposer's inability to articulate the issue according to Holacracy-type language and expectations as not being a valid tension. Especially people who aren't used to having to provide their reasoning. In my experience, just as a human person, I don't always know why I do what I do. So, cut them some slack and help them translate what they are sensing. Truly invalid proposals are usually identifiable because the proposer has a certain lightness and carefree-ness to what they are proposing, which only makes sense because they're not actually feeling tension about something, they just think "this would be a cool idea." This is a pretty serious topic in my mind, because a lot of damage can be done if people feel like there is a high-bar for governance proposals. 

what do if someone "sneaks" another Tension during Integration round - Yeah this is a great one! So, the right thing to do is ask the proposer..."Does this change here [be very specific]...is that also a part of your original tension?" And I ask that question with genuine curiosity. Meaning, it's not a rhetorical question meant to embarrass them (i.e. I'm not thinking of them intentionally "sneaking" a tension in). It's possible the new bit actually IS part of the original tension, it just didn't get communicated earlier. When I've asked this I find people are pretty honest.

If they then say it's not, then you say [and be very confident and directive], "Ah! Ok then, then that's a separate agenda item...Secretary can you add that as an agenda item?...and we'll do that one next. So, Secretary remove that bit for now...." or something like that. The point is that you have an obligation to, 1) ask the clarifying question, and if it isn't, 2) process it separately.

Might that feel awkward? Absolutely. Afterall, everyone seemed OK with it. But again, everyone being OK with it isn't the criteria. The only way to really tell if it's part of the original tension or not is to ask the proposer. They are the only ones who can determine where the line is. The facilitator's job isn't to judge its veracity but to surface the information and move things along accordingly.

One final point on this because I really really really really appreciate how awkward this can be. So, if someone asks a timeout question like, "But wait...why in the world would we add a new agenda item when we're already here!?!?" then here is one effective way I've found to answer that question is something like:

"Yes, you know what, to be honest...in any given case it may be faster to just make that change now. But here's the thing...by using a defined process, we will absolutely move faster overall. It's like a traffic control system. Sure, in any given case, it would be faster for me to ignore the red light and drive right through the intersection...I can see no one is coming...it's probably safe...but as facilitator, I'm not in the position to make subjective judgments about what rules I personally think we should follow. So, we follow the process and the rules as defined, understanding that sure, in any given case it could have been faster to just integrate that bit, but that's a sacrifice we make to having a clear process that allows everyone to get where they are going as fast as possible. So, it sucks when I hit a redlight when no one else is coming the other way, but I understand that overall, stopping at redlights makes sense for everyone." 

And I've actually said much more than this too! LOL. I just think it's such an important point to get across that it's worth taking some time for some discussion to address any people's reasonable skepticism that this process will "help them solve their problems more quickly." 

[@mention:449411339497350002] and I have talked about this quite a bit and he has a really cool graphic that also makes the point really well. I would post it myself, but I don't know where he stored it.  [@mention:449411339497350002] would you be willing to share it? 

 

 

Heleen Kuiper
02/16/2018

Wow Chris, I really appreciate how you take the time every time to answer our questions so thoroughly! Thank you so much, it has been illuminating again!

Olivier Compagne
02/16/2018

[@mention:455886150941203371] Ha, I don't think I've published this chart anywhere... I definitely should, it's been on my list for months. Thanks for the nudge!

Chris Cowan
02/19/2018

Screen_Shot_2018_02_19_at_12_27_34_PM[@mention:449411339497350002]: I re-created the diagram from what I remembered. I hope this is helpful for others. I think it's a much simpler way to describe the whole, "Sure, in any given case..." idea from above. 

Bernard Marie Chiquet
02/19/2018

Love it [@mention:455886150941203371]

Olivier Compagne
02/19/2018

[@mention:455886150941203371] Yep that's about it, thanks!

Isabelle Rappart
02/21/2018

@Chris : thanks a lot, very useful

Konrad Olesiewicz
02/23/2018

[@mention:455886150941203371], again now customary big thanks in the name of the practice group! also thank you [@mention:449411339497350002] for the inspiration regarding the complexity. Much appreciated.

Today we had a special prep. session as I am having my certification in a week and it was a very intense experience to facilitate for almost 2 hours straight, though a great experience and ability to dive deep. Recommended for all people preparing for the exam. Much thanks to [@mention:563839477050140014] and Toon Franken for providing really great cases! A few bits:

> is "more" in an accountability an NVGO?

He had an accountability that said something like "more promoting of [...] ". There was a coaching time-out where it was said that in Holacracy the Roles themselves decide upon both the priority and intensity of how they enact their Purpose through their accountabilities. Is this actually an NVGO a Facilitator might declare or let's just let it slip ? If an NVGO then on what basis? How would you handle that?

> why we ask the Proposer about Objection on his own Proposal?

Well the short answer is that because the process tells so, but it seems insufficient when faced with an honest question. The reason I can think of at this moment is that maybe the Proposer can view the Proposal from a distance and reflect if weather it affects his or hers other Roles? Open to any suggestions.

> can we have 2 same accountabilities on different Roles?

We had a case where during A&C the Propose, based on feedback from RR, made this modification. We have assumed that it's still Valid Governance and that sooner of later Tensions would start surfacing if this would not work so it was OK but I am interested in other opinions?

> helping with crafting the Proposal by Facilitator

We played a pretty novice group and there was some pretty direct Coaching that they the Proposer can do what we wants via a Domain for example. It was pretty direct coaching, in comparison to giving a more general questions, but it seemed right at the time. Any comments on this?

Best to all!

Vincent
02/25/2018
 

 

 

Hi Konrad, my thought on these issues : 

 > is "more" in an accountability an NVGO?

I would interpret it as what Brian calls "bad governance" rather than "unvalid governance", if it describes an ongoing activity, starting with a "-ing" verb. Giving the piece of coaching that you gave, because it seems in your case that they may have a misunderstanding of what can be expected from an accountability.

> why we ask the Proposer about Objection on his own Proposal?

I have the same interrogation, and by now the same answer that you wrotte.

> can we have 2 same accountabilities on different Roles ?

For me yes. There is no rule that says the opposite. And for example, if in a "social media wizard" role I want to ask contents from 2 or 3 differents roles in the circle on a regular basis , I could find useful to add te same accountability to those different roles. There is no notion of exclusive control  in an accountability, unlike in a domain.

> helping with crafting the Proposal by Facilitator

I suggest to do so using the process as much as you can : using clarifying questions and reaction round, as all members, it's possible to show possible pathway to the Proposer (for example expressing that "hearing the tension that has been exposed, and the answers to the clarifying questions, adding a domain (...) to the role (...) could bring (...)"). Without any pressure on the Proposer (avoiding "you should" maybe), trusting that you can use the objection round if you detect an NVGO. And as a complement, I use times out.

With a beginners group, I would take care of this "sharing inputs without pressuring" stance. Respecting the Proposer's sovereignty, even if its solution doesn't seems very good to me even after giving him some suitable coaching , if it's safe enough to try (and if it's not in my opinion, it seems I have an objection)

I wish you good luck for the assessment !

 

Chris Cowan
02/27/2018

> is "more" in an accountability an NVGO?

I'd love to find a way to NVGO object, but I think it's probably just "bad." If I were facilitating I'd probably try to set-up a relevant objector by saying something like, "This is a step forward -- though if I were in role X, I would probably object to the  word 'more,' because I'll lose clarity on how much energy I should put toward that accountability..." or something like that. 

More broadly, I think there is an important distinction to be made between what a facilitator, as facilitator, might object to (e.g. NVGO), versus what other roles probably should object to, but may not because they're just learning how it all works and may not see the issues in the moment. In the second case, I generally just try to highlight the issue for people, and give them a good argument for an objection without pushing it on them. 

I'm also not completely convinced there isn't some genuine NVGO objection that could be made on it. It's just a sense I have, but I can't think of what it would be. 

> why we ask the Proposer about Objection on his own Proposal?

Yep, you got it. It's also a manifestation of the "one tension at a time" principle, meaning, as proposer, you don't need to think through very much at all...you don't need to worry about how it might impact others, you don't even need to worry about how/if it might impact other roles you yourself have...because you can always object. That's the beauty of the process.

Another function of this question is if the proposer realizes that the proposal wouldn't actually resolve the tension (regardless of other roles they hold). In that case, a proposer might actually object to the proposal as NVGO, because by definition, a proposal needs to resolve a tension and this proposal doesn't. I don't recall if I've ever actually seen it used, but just knowing it's there has been helpful for me. 

> can we have 2 same accountabilities on different Roles?

I haven't come across instances where this makes sense, but [@mention:476716727616148334] makes a good argument that it may be fine. In general though, I'd be very skeptical of it. Afterall, decreasing clarity is pretty much the definition of "harm." So, it kinda goes back to whether you're thinking of it as a facilitator only (i.e. "What NVGO objection might I be able to raise to this?") versus whether you have other roles in the circle that could object, or are trying to equip other roles with a good objection. 

If I was facilitating, I would probably go early in the reaction round and say something like, "Having the same accountability in two places generally means we're losing clarity somehow, so if I was in any roles that leaned on that expectation, I'd think really hard about whether having it in two places would impact my role. Maybe not...." 

And of course, I'd always end with something like, "And proposer, this is actually completely irrelevant at all for you, because the process doesn't want you to worry about any of this. You just stick with the proposal as is if it solves your tension." This seems particularly important because you said, "We had a case where during A&C the Propose, based on feedback from RR, made this modification," which is a red flag to me. 

> helping with crafting the Proposal by Facilitator

Great question. For me, it all depends on whether; 1) the proposer asked the facilitator a question about domains, or 2) the facilitator provided that information unsolicited. The first one is fine, the second one isn't. 

If you're dealing with a novice group, then I'd let them propose anything they want, say very little in RR, then raise an objection and only THEN would I provide the direct coaching. This is by far the best approach because it's  "facilitating the process, and letting the process facilitate the people." Which isn't to say direct coaching earlier on can't be helpful...it's just that you're teaching them the right things with the wrong method. And since experience is the best teacher, you'll actually be taking a step backward because people will remember the experience more than the content you said.

On the other hand, if they asked a question because they're not sure what Holacracy construct would actually work, then that is basically like asking for discussion (i.e. they don't know what solves their tension), though as a facilitator, I would likely just answer it and see if that was enough for them to propose something.

Other than that though, watch out for the seductive allure of the direct path. As coach Pat Riley has said, "Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." It's far more important that everyone plays by the same rules than someone get a slightly faster answer in any given case. 

In general, I think facilitators get way too anxious about helping people understand all of the rules and best practices in a single meeting. It's not necessary to capitalize on every possible learning opportunity because it's not possible to absorb that much. How long has it taken most of us to learn these nuances? Usually years. So, best case scenario, exceptionally good explanations could speed that up very slightly, but it's still going to take a long time (and if the right stuff is taught the wrong way, then ultimately it's not even helping). With that in mind...so what if the governance output is bad? It's not carved in stone. There is plenty of time for things to work themselves out. On the other hand, addressing all cases of bad governance during the meeting conveys the opposite message. Instead, use the time outside of the meeting to talk about those things.

*stepping off soapbox now. : ) 

Konrad Olesiewicz
02/27/2018

[@mention:476716727616148334], [@mention:455886150941203371] Thank you very much for your answers and all the knowledge.

I really liked the nuanced way of "animating" Objections "against" "bad" governance and found it illuminating as well as the approach to finding balance in facilitating vs. coaching and direct help. Said it before and will say it again. Thanks for having the opportunity to get those answers

Regards!

Konrad Olesiewicz
03/02/2018

So today we had a pretty extensive practice focusing on [@mention:577352400502155145] Cert. Prep kudos to [@mention:527948166491091727], [@mention:577211662873788485], [@mention:498251187806746638] and Dathane Turner for making this happen

> "what's the harm?" or "what's the objection?"

A but of a nuance but important After the question of "Do you see any reason this Proposal [...]" when someone says "Objection" it's better to ask "what's the harm?" or "what's the objection?". I personally like to focus on the harm as it is the Tension underlying the Objectors Objection thus more essential but at the same time to Secretary need to note down the Objection in the scratchpad. Maybe it would be best to ask both questions at some point?

> misbehaving during A&C

We had a situation when the Proposer got irritated and "thanked" for "sh**ty feedback" during the A&C. For one it might have been a signal the Proposer has not been protected enough and it is always good to keep reminding via time-out's that in Reaction Round we need to direct our reaction at a space not at the Proposer which might help to manage the tensions. Should the facilitator intervene in such instances? In my opinion, no as he facilitates the process not the people. Similarly when someone want's to babble during Reaction Round he gets enough time for him to feel inadequate and start self-reflection. 

> uncertainty if something is an NVGO or not

We had an Objection coming from one of Participants that the Proposal as it is is an NVGO. The Facilitator was not sure and he ruled that it is not. Who should make that call? Section 3.4.1 of the Constitution says "Secretary Interpretation Trumps", does that mean that when not sure the Secretary should decide and thus not allow (invalidate) an NVGO-based Objection from the Participant?

Thanks in advance and have a great day!

Tom Mulder
03/02/2018

"what's the harm?" or "what's the objection?"

I always ask the Objector, like mentioned on the card, "What is the harm". After the Objector has given insight on the harm I will then ask to work together with the Secretary to note down the Objection in the scratchpad. 

misbehaving during A&C

This round is for the Proposer to amend or clarify something on the Proposal and not an Reaction Round to respond on reactions. So like you state I would point this Rule out but also would do something with the feeling by explaining that reactions are directed at the space and should not be personal.

uncertainty if something is an NVGO or not

If you look at the Accountabilities of the Secretary Role you see "Interpreting Governance and the Constitution upon request" as one of the Accountabilities. So yes it is the Secretary who we turn to in this case.

Konrad Olesiewicz
03/12/2018

Hi all!

I am already after my assessment with [@mention:449974511452179429] and [@mention:447159220284187599]. Again thanks guys for a great learning experience. I am happy to say I have passed the assessment and obtained the Certified Holacracy Facilitator credential.

To all great people that were there and made the practise fun and a kind of a ritual: thank you VERY much   [@mention:563839477050140014], [@mention:577352400502155145], [@mention:527948166491091727], [@mention:573692591169355705], [@mention:577211662873788485], [@mention:498251187806746638], [@mention:550889693769022824], [@mention:573270378663965046], Dathane and others. Thanks [@mention:523162737680436711] and [@mention:493465881837995141] for setting the group up and [@mention:455886150941203371] for great feedback As for me I will be taking a bit of a break from online practice to re-focus but intent to hop in from time to time, keep on practicing, let's make the community grow and break a leg on your assessments

Wishing all the best!

Vincent
03/12/2018
Congratulations Konrad !
Tom Mulder
03/13/2018

Congrats Konrad and it was my pleasure to contribute. Thanks for the great questions and the summaries you wrote on the CoP about the learning during the Online Practice Group.

Enjoy the relax period and see you soon in one of the sessions.

Cheers, Tom

Sam Burnett
03/13/2018

Congrats [@mention:564684143600201011] ! I hope you take some time to celebrate the accomplishment. 

Karilen Mays
03/19/2018

Konrad, It was very nice to meet you, and I had fun. Congratulations on your progress so far and I look forward to staying in touch and hearing about your experience coaching.

Allan Rhodes
02/16/2019

Hi: 

I have been reading part of this discussion of the Online Practice Group and I wanted to ask if it is still going on.  Sounds like a great training space.  

Best regards, 

 

Allan Rhodes 

Konrad Olesiewicz
02/18/2019

Hi Allan,

This particular thread is currently inactive but you can ask [@mention:523162737680436711] weather anything is currently running in regards to practice.

Take care!