I've been practicing Holacracy in my organisation where I'm Lead Link (and for the time being Facilitator - I know, I know) of the General Circle for just over a month now.
I created the initial set of defined roles and accountabilities which were needed to bootstrap the organisation into a holarchy.
So far I've experienced much improved efficiency from adopting weekly Tactical Meetings and my other colleagues who've not had practitioner training are quickly getting the hang of governance versus tactical tensions and working though the Holacracy Habits program.
Something interesting happened in our tactical meeting yesterday and I'm looking for insights from more experienced practitioners.
It's about processing the tension between the General Circle and the Anchor Circle.
We triaged an issue and the output was a governance tension.
However, it became clear to me as we processed the tactical issue raised and created a Governance Tension output that beyond processing it in due course, it's likely to need a strategy conversation and a purpose conversation at Board level (we have a General Circle that has a Board anchor circle).
Without getting into much detail, but to put some flesh on the bones...
The organisation produces video content for adult learners for subscription sale. There are four relevant roles: Content Maker, Recipe Maker (the recipe informs the content), Market Maker and Business Model Maker. I fulfil these last two roles. Within these roles I am accountable for defining our market positioning, market messaging, marketing etc.
All fine at General Circle level apart from the tensions expressed by me in these roles, plus the two people holding the Content and Recipe Making roles during yesterday's Tactical Meeting.
At Board level, we have an investor who has entrepreneurial flair and a network useful to the business. He's not willing to carry a role within the General Circle and holds strong views about market positioning, market messaging and how the recipe is expressed in the video content. Those of us with the General Circle roles listed above also hold equity and can easily out vote him at the Board level, but are reluctant to do so because we value his input - he thinks differently from the rest of the Board and we're good friends with him.
What's the Holacracy way of processing General and Anchor level tensions? Convention dictates putting it to the vote based on shareholding. Is there a better way?
Just to say our beloved Board member is resistant to adopting Holacracy too, but for me it's golden - it flushed out the issue that he wasn't prepared to "do" only to advise/offer his opinion on what "we" should do!