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

Referring to a lead link

hi all,

 

we crafted last week a proposal to further specify how resource allocation works (a lead link accountability) and how other roles are involved there. We noticed that it was not possible in glassfrog to refer to the lead link (eg by using @lead_l.. in the accountability the role didnt show up) to make explicit on what the new role we had in mind does and what remains with the lead link.

 

anyone an idea on why this is not possible?

 

our initial thought was that on the lead link accountability of allocating resources it is ok to refer to the lead link in another role. and does not create "old management" behavior. 

 

second thoughts were that if it isnt possible in glassfrog it is probably for a reason...

 

Koen

5 Replies
Jean-Michel Gode
09/26/2015

Hi Koen,

As the LL role is constitutional, you can't change any LL accountability.

But you may set a policy specifying how the ressources allocation works.

Does thet help ?

Dien Kwik
09/28/2015

Hi, Jean:

 

In theory, we could set a detailed policy describing the steps to do every single accountability of a particular role, as long as all circle members consent to it.

However, in this scenario, we are probably taking away too much autonomy of the role filler to choose what's best.

 

I wonder if there's a guideline or principle to prevent this from happening ?

 

Thanks,

 

Dien.

 

 

 

 

Koen Veltman
09/28/2015

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.

Mieke Byerley
09/29/2015
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.

 Hi Koen,

 

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. 

Koen Veltman
09/29/2015

Hi Mieke, I like the way to think about direction of power.

in that sense Jean-Michel his idea of providing a circle policy is probably great. There is no Domain on resource allocation, only an accountability with the Lead Link. So probably a general circle policy is a great clarification that provides clarity on the direction of energy here.

 

to my understanding adding something to the lead link role itself is constitutionally not allowed. so don't see that work.

 

any thoughts?