High Performance Project Processes supported by HolacracyÔ Structures
HolacracyOne
- Organization at the Leading Edge:
Introducing Holacracy™ By Brian J. Robertson
Integrative Decision-Making
Process (short-format)
There are several facilitation formats available for
integrative decision-making. The following is the “short-format” process, used
when a circle member has both a tension to resolve and a specific proposal to
offer as a starting point for integration:
Present Proposal: The proposer
states the tension to be resolved and a possible proposal for addressing it.
Clarifying questions are allowed solely for the purpose of understanding what
is being proposed. Discussion and reactions are cut off immediately by the
facilitator, especially reactions veiled in question format (e.g. “Don’t you think
that would cause trouble?”).
Reaction Round: The facilitator
asks each person in turn to provide a quick gut reaction to the proposal (e.g.
“Sounds great”, “I’m really concerned about X”, etc.). Discussion or cross-talk
of any sort is ruthlessly cut off by the facilitator – this is sacred space for
each person to notice, share, and detach from their reactions, without needing
to worry about the potential effect of sharing them.
Amend or Clarify: The proposer has
a chance to clarify any aspects of the proposal they feel may need clarifying
after listening to the reactions, or to amend the proposal in very minor ways
based on the reactions (only trivial amendments should be attempted at this
stage, even if there were clear shortcomings pointed out). Discussion is cut
off by the facilitator.
Objection Round: The facilitator
asks each person in turn if they see any objections to the proposal as stated.
Objections are briefly stated without discussion or questions; the facilitator
lists all objections on the board, and cuts off discussion of any kind at this
stage. If the objection round completes with no objections surfaced, the
decision is made and the process ends.
Integration: If objections
surface, once the objection round completes the group enters open dialog to
integrate the core truth in each into an amended proposal. As soon as an
amended proposal surfaces which might work, the facilitator cuts off dialog,
states the amended proposal, and goes back to an objection round.
Dynamic Steering
There are three key rules for effective dynamic steering:
1. Any issue can be revisited at any time,
as new information arises – steer continually, whenever needed.
2. The goal at any given moment is to find a workable
decision, not the “best” decision – make small workable decisions
rapidly, and let the best decision emerge over time.
3. Present tensions are all that matter – avoid
acting on predictive tensions and delay decisions until the last responsible
moment.
Critical to dynamic steering is the rule that any issue
can be revisited at any time. Dynamic steering requires we make quick
decisions based on the aim/purpose of the circle and the facts at hand, and
knowing that we can revisit the issue later as new information arises helps us
avoid getting bogged down by predictive fears or trying to figure everything
out up front.
From Accountabilities to
Roles
An accountability is one specific activity that the
organization is counting on. It typically begins with an “-ing”
verb, such as “facilitating a daily meeting”, or “faxing documents upon
request”, or “managing overall resource allocation for the company”. Whenever an accountability is defined, it is also immediately
attached to a Role.
Roles in Holacracy hold multiple related accountabilities
in a cohesive container. The list of explicit accountabilities is detailed and
granular, so we avoid the “title trap” – thinking we’ve made expectations
explicit just by creating a job title or a place in the management hierarchy.
The question of
who you are accountable to just isn’t very useful – many people count on you! A
much more useful question is “for what?” – what
do they count on you for? Any given role may have dozens of
accountabilities, and any given individual may fill multiple roles. Start
simple and clarify accountabilities over time, as tensions actually arise from
unclear implicit accountabilities or conflicts between roles; no sooner, no
later. Clearly differentiae individuals from the roles they fill to separate
emotions about people from emotions about the Roles.
Integrating Autocracy
Despite its
power, most decisions in actually are not made directly via the integrative
decision-making process. Most of the decisions we face day-to-day are
relatively simple and most effectively made by one person autocratically. The
governance decision to give autocratic control over certain operational
decisions is always done via integrative decision-making. That is, defining and
assigning roles and accountabilities and the type of control that goes with
them is done through integrative decision-making. In fact, by default any
accountability assignment also grants autocratic control with regard to that
specific issue, unless another accountability exists
which limits this control, such as an accountability to integrate other
perspectives before making a decision.
Individual Action
No matter how
detailed and refined we’ve made our roles and accountabilities, there will be
cases where actions are needed which are outside of our role definitions, and
thus outside of our official authority. In fact, in the early days it is likely
that most of what we do falls outside of defined accountabilities, since we let
roles evolve over time instead of trying to guess at what they need to be
predicatively.
Individual Action
tells us to do exactly what we usually hope people do anyway: Consider the
information available, use your best judgment from your highest self, and take whatever action you believe is best for the circle’s
aims. And when that action falls outside or even against existing
accountabilities, be prepared to go out of your way to “restore the balance”
from any harm or injustice caused, via a restorative justice system rather than
a punitive one. And finally, take the perceived need for such action to a
governance meeting, so that the circle can learn from the case study by
evolving roles and accountabilities to transcend the need for it next time – in
this way, individual action drives organizational evolution.
|
A “circle” in HolacracyÔ is a self-organizing team. Each circle has an aim (purpose), and the authority to define and assign its own roles and accountabilities. Each circle has a breadth of scope it focuses on – some circles are focused on implementing specific projects, others on managing a department, and others on overall business operations. Whatever the circle’s level of scale, the
same basic rules apply. Each circle is a Regardless of the specific area or level of scale a circle is focused on, it makes its own policies and decisions to govern that level of scale (“leading”), it does or produces something (“doing”), and it collects feedback from the doing (“measuring”) to guide adjustments to its policies and decisions, bringing us full-circle into a self-organizing feedback loop. |
|
Summary by Technology Transformations.