Hi Nadir,

Except the Lead Link, any core member of the Broad Circle may be elected as Rep Link of this Circle to the Anchor Circle.

He/She will "represent the interests" of the Broad Circle in the Anchor Circle, not the interests of the Sub-Circle 1 and the Sub-Circle 2, which are already represented in the Broad Circle though RL1 and RL2.

Hope that helps.

Hi JEAN-MICHEL! Thanks for the answer! But in a Broad circle there are no other roles, except the Lid-link. Whose interests will Rep-Link present in the Anchor Circle? Interests of lead-links of sub-circles? 

Hi [@mention:558068091793200931] To add on Jean-Michel's comment, I would be curious to explore with you any possibility for making  the structure may be simplier given the small numbers of roles here - why not having two roles instead of two sub-circles within the circle.

Hi, [@mention:449833773917801859], thanks for the answer! 

In the current structure these sub-circles are departments. Authorities for hiring employees, assigning metrics and expectations are at the head of the lower level, since the top-level manager can not effectively cope with these duties. If we create one common circle, these functions are returned to the top-level manager (lead-link), which will negatively affect the efficiency. Can the lid-link transfer these powers to any of the roles of the circle?

We solved this problem as follows. We have united these 2 departments in one circle and created a separate role, which was partially delegated the authority of the lead-link for hiring and firing employees.

I'm not sure if such a solution is correct

This seems great !