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

Payment Policy


I am working now on new "Payment Rules" (who can authorize what kind of spending and up to what amount) - there were some tensions about it.

As I understand, myself as a Lead Link of GCC, have the right to decide this policy. 

My question is: Do this Rules have to refer to roles, or can it refer to partners?

I am thinking about some mix, i.e.:

1, Any role can spend xxx amount when working in role

2. Any role can spend xxx amount when doing individual action

3. Additionally: Partners A, B, C can authorize amount up to xxx level, etc....


What do you think about it?

(from the Constitution point of view, and from your experience)

Kind regards,


4 Replies
Tom Mulder


You can check the H1 spending policy for inspiration:  https://app.glassfrog.com/policies/1499644

If you type spending in the search box you will find more policies within H1 on spending authority.

Chris Cowan

Hey Mikolaj,  

One quick comment. Overall, I think you're going about it the right one. However, this part, "3. Additionally: Partners A, B, C can authorize amount up to xxx level, etc..." should be changed from "Partners A, B, C" to some sort of "Spending Authorizer" role. So, in addition to the policy, add a part to your proposal to include a simple role to perform the function you intend, then just fill it with the role-fillers you think most appropriate.  


Thanks for comments, I already have some idea how to do it. 

But, there is another doubt:

1. I am a LL of GCC

2. We have few sub-circles

3. I want to create some rule related to payment/cost approval.

4. There are some roles in a sub-circle, that have special meaning in our cost approval (i.e. raw material purchasing)

My question is: As a LL of GCC, can I grant some permission to the role that exist in a sub-circle? (from the point of view of constitution, as well as common sense..)



Chris Cowan


As GCC Lead Link, you could propose a policy on the GCC Circle that says, "Only Roles X, Y, & Z have permission to..." and Roles X, Y, & Z could exist anywhere including a sub-circle. That would be fine. 

However, since the Roles exist in a sub-circle, you don't have any way of constraining those Roles from evolving (name changes, accountability changes, role-filler changes, etc.), and the GCC policy of course would still give that Role the permission. Now, in practice, I haven't encountered a problem with this since governance changes are transparent, but I thought I'd mention it.