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


I need some clarification in regards to a company in the early stages of Holacracy. Lets say you have a lead link of the anchor circle. And you have an individual who is, lets say, energizing the marketing role. But, he has the tension that he wants to create another role that has nothing to do with his marketing role, but finds that it will be a good idea because he does have a tension that this role should be created eventhough it does not directly deal with his marketing role. Can a partner create an agenda item and then have the IDM process churn through or, because his only role is a marketing role and proposal to create another role is invalid because it does not directly resolve a tension arising from the only role he is energizing which is the marketing role. 

5 Replies
Juliane Martina Röll


Hey Daesun! I'll give you a pragmatic rather than constitution-scientific answer:

3.2.2 "Criteria for Valid Proposals" says: "a Proposal is always valid (...) if it is made solely to help evolve the Circle’s Governance to more clearly reflect activity that is already happening" (emphasis mine)

So one pragmatic way to "create Roles" from scratch is to simply do the job that one wants to see happening, and then come up with a Proposal _that captures the already happening action_. 

This saves you all the trouble of analysing wether or not the Proposal benefits one of the proposers Roles or not.

This may be a little bit ugly, but it does encourage _action_ (do a thing that one feels needs doing; Holacracy/Governance/Stabilizing comes afterwards) over theorizing ("I think we should have this Role"), so I like it. :-) 

What do you think?



This sounds good. So, when we are creating a tension in glassfrog and it asks what role does it connect with. If "partner" is an implicit role..i am cautious about that because if feels like a slippery slope that partners can make proposals. At the objection round, it does state specifically that "Does it limit one of your roles? (which one), or are you just trying to help another role." If we go the partner route, it feels like a loop hole I don't want to open. because then they can run amok because a partner does not a role or an accountability. Not sure. I am curious about what others think.

Oliver Emmler

Hi Daesun,

i'm not sure if i got your post fully correct. For me it sounds like you already deal with the partner role as you state it implicit. You can even make it explicit which some organizations do. You then would have a general role "partner" with accountabilities and made explicit.

Best Regards,



That is it! Governance meeting to create a partner role with accountabilities. When you say it, it is so obvious. Thank you!


Ahh Oliver, I got a correction from Olivier Compagne about this issue. we should not do that because, according to the constitution, Partners already have duties that they must adhere to such as manifesting the organizations purpose being one of them among others. For my purposes, I want to see where the partner can offer proposals and such if they feel tension and the constitution says they can do so. Now, when it comes to helping another role such as a partner, this is where they will hit an objection through the testing objections regardless. This was my concern partners offering proposals to help another role is just as wrong if one role tries to help another role.  However, as it states in the constitution, finally, a proposal is always valid regardless of the preceding criteria if it is made solely to help evolve the Circle’s Governance to more clearly reflect activity that is already happening, or to trigger a new election for any Elected Role." So regardless of where it comes from, this is paramount. 

I wonder how others feel about this? Am I on track? lol.