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

Surrogates

Two part question stemming from the following tension.  A Lead Link is frustrated by the fact that some Roles are not present at tactical meetings to report on metrics, checklists, and project updates.

First part of the question:  Can a Role-filler designate someone to attend in his/her absence to temporarily fill the Role?  I don't see any provision for that in the Constitution, but I feel like I've heard that before.  In the case of the Role being a Sub-Circle, the Lead Link/Rep Link are allowed to bring someone to address a specific Tension.  However, reporting on metrics, projects, and checklists does not seem like a specific Tension.  (And if the Lead Link and Rep Link are absent, it seems contrary to the spirit of bringing someone "to aid the link").

Second:  Based on the attendance clauses in the constitution, it seems like writing a policy that requires a specified set of Roles to be present at a Tactical Meeting would be valid, correct?

I understand that anything done in a Tactical Meeting can be done outside of a Tactical Meeting, so the Lead Link is always free to ask for this information at any time.  However, face to face time is difficult to come by, and those kinds of updates are generally better delivered in real-time; so we want to come up with an effective and constitutional way to deal with this.  Curious if anyone else has had this frustration and how you have dealt with it.

2 Replies
Chris Cowan
07/08/2017

The simple path is for the Lead Link to use the existing prioritization power to say, "attending this meeting is the highest priority among any other work in the circle." 

Then, if someone doesn't show they would need to explain why. 

Often this is enough. 

awo
07/10/2017

Any core circle member can request another core circle member to attend a specific instance of a recurring meeting to process a tension (that's my reading of 4.1.3). Duty of prioritisation than applies.

As far as I can see, there's nothing in the constitution to stop you having 'surrogates' for roles (and agreeing how that happens may be useful under other circumstances too - illness, holiday cover etc). In Governance "a Proposal may alternatively help another Circle Member better express one of that person’s Roles in the Circle, but only if that person has granted the Proposer permission to represent that Role"  - so my inclination would be to apply the same spirit in Tactical. But you can of course do anything