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

Withholding permission to impact a domain

In the article 4.1.2c of the constitution (v4.1) it is explained that a role holding a domain must allow access to the domain upon request, if the role sees no objection.

The constitution doesn't specify what could by defined as an objection in those cases, but my guts tell me that those objections need to be tested on their validity, exactly like in a governance meeting. I have experienced situation where objections are needlessly predictive or the objection is already a problem and would not be caused by granting access. Withholding permission in such cases doesn't seem healthy.

Very simple example - The omnipresent Website domain:

Role Communication hast control over the domain: Website content. Role Outreach would like to add content to the website to market a new service. Role Communication objects, due to the fact that the website is overloaded and also a new website will be launched soon (no time estimate) and the new content rather needs to be added there.

 

8 Replies
Jean-Michel Gode
10/13/2016

Hi Tiziano,

From my perspective, objection - as it is described - seams non valid as:
• it is already an issue
• sounds like a resource allocation matter…

Actually, might be here 2 tensions at the same time:
• Role Outreach: adding content,
• Role Communication: mastering an overloaded website
to be solved by 2 different proposals

What about?
Hope that helps.

 

 

 

Brian Robertson
10/13/2016

Jean-Michel:  Sounds like it might fail the "already an issue" test, but there is no required objection criteria that says it can't be about a resource allocation matter, so that part might be perfectly valid...

Tiziano
10/14/2016

Even if it would be a resource allocation matter, in my opinion it wouldn't be a valid objection either, since it's then a matter of prioritization. The Role Communication would have the duty to capture the request and transparently communicate the priorities. 

Gerald Mitterer
10/14/2016

Hey Tiziano,

I underline the points you are making (about invalidity), but have not quite got your underlying question in the starting post (nor can find any in your post ;-).

I can see different questions, such as: 1) what is the technically correct way/answer re objections in case of access request? 2) what do I do as (what role?) if someone is not willing to grant access even if the objections are not valid? 3) or: what to do when ego-driven behavior shows up and people don't play by the rules or try to outsmart the system by stubbornly staying with their perspective only.

If it is about further pathways to process that, you are not dependent on the valid/invalid objection question.

1) Outreach could think of using governance to withdraw the domain from that role, if outreach could provide real examples how this harms the circle. You could make it part of the circle and add a policy how access is constrained for example to integrate possibly occuring objections of communication role. 

2) additionally, probably not the preferred option but still a pathway: if a role-filler continuously shows stubborn behavior pitch the lead link to check role-fit. If it is about people fighting the rules of the game a more in-depth coaching or conversation seems also helpful IMHO (by whatever role holds accountabilities for that). 

Curious, what specifically is of interest to you.

- Gerald

Tiziano
10/17/2016

Hey Gerald, right, I kind of missed to formulate a clear question

Are objections on domain impact requests to be tested? How? By whom? If not, why not?

I think having a process to rely on when requesting to impact a domain can feel empowering for the requesting side and relieving for the domain holder.

I don't feel like assuming that when a domain-controlling role-filler denies access to the domain, it necessarily has to be solved by either removing the domain or replacing the role-filler. I fear this encourages ego-driven behaviours.

Gerald Mitterer
10/17/2016

Hey Tiziano,

in my understanding: I'd always use the objection testing criteria if a phrase in the constitution, a policy or accountability refers to the term objection. e.g. as well if an accountability states "doing X after integrating objections of role Y"

- Gerald

 

Tiziano
10/17/2016

I agree, but it's not something that is constitutionally requested if I understand it correctly, as objection testing seems only to be restricted to governance meetings.

Now I can of course make governance proposals to extend objection testings to other situations in our company.

The question is: would it make sense to be constitutionally requested? At least for domain impact objections, as this is the only mention of "objections" outside governance in the constitution.

Gerald Mitterer
10/17/2016

Hey Tiziano,

I agree, but it's not something that is constitutionally requested if I understand it correctly, as objection testing seems only to be restricted to governance meetings.

right, that's my understanding as well.

See Constitution 3.2.5 "Testing objections": "The Facilitator MAY test the validity of a claimed Objection by asking the Objector questions"...unless it is required by a circle member: (3.2.6. "The Facilitator MUST test an Objection if requested by any Core Circle Member").

However, interesting point you brought up about integrating it into the constitution. It is not specified IMO how that objection testing works outside meetings and if it is (always) the Circle Facilitator testing (and which one in case of different circles...). Interesting point...some additional clarity might help indeed.

- Gerald