Originally Posted by Koen Veltman:
Hi Jean, Dien, thanks for replying. appreciate it a lot.
I agree with that adding a general circle policy is a nice route to take. as it makes explicit how another role gets access to the resource allocation accountability of the Lead Link by default. eg its prevents handling/labeling it as something like Lead Link "approval".
Lets dive into this one step deeper. Lets say I am helping a larger organization that still has a few old school budget processes and control accountabilities hanging around. Fully letting go of that is not safe enough to try (assumption to build this case, but probably an objection that could happen in real life easily). So what I was looking for is a way to refer to the lead link so resource allocation remains with the Lead Link, but making explicit other roles (eg finance/control/budgetprep) have a role in preparing/supporting that Lead Link accountability. Thats why I was looking in the accountability of this supporting role to refer in its accountability explicitly to the Lead Link. As an intermediary way to power up the Lead Link role. And that reference didnt seem possible.
Is it possible that maybe the direction of the authority is the wrong way round? What I mean here is you are looking to add the accountability to the Support Role is it possible that the accountability needs to turned around and then added to the LL role. For instance that the LL needs to seek input from the said Support Roles. The reason why I bring this up is that your proposed added accountability exerts Power/Control on the part of the Support Role over the LL, which is something that Holacracy strives to mitigate. The second alternative shifts that to a give/receive discipline neutralizing the control/power factor. When dealing with the LL, I find it easier to think the role in terms of a Coordinator. I don't know if this helps.