Friday, September 19, 2014

Holacracy Workshop Notes

Background

  These notes are an outline of the content that was covered at a Taster workshop in San Fran given by Margaret Ryan of yWonderWorks.com to share with others and for reference.


Overview – Holacracy Basics and Key Concepts


·         PurposeOur purpose as a company must be clearly defined as a first step.  It guides us to what we prioritize.  Holacracy is all based on and centered around purpose – the company’s and that of individual roles. (Example purpose:  Create together the tools that improve quality of life.)  One clear, simple sentence is ideal.

·         The Goal of HolacracyAnything, sensed by anyone, anywhere in the company, is rapidly and reliably processed into meaningful change (if relevant to the purpose).

·         Holacracy is:

o   One set of rules for everyone.

o   Operating on a set of practices, not theories.

o   A systematic set of meetings to sync members and create accountabilities.

o   Integration of perspectives and distribution of autocratic authority through governance meetings.  (Ex:  John is in charge of newsletters and can make all decisions about them, but must integrate the opinions of Susan and Sarah as contributors)

o   A bias toward action in iterations (not perfection).  Instead of planning, process tension, determine next action, do, repeat.  Not using scenarios.

·         Tension

o   Definition: The felt-sense of a specific gap between the current reality and a sensed potential.

o   Tensions are not negative, but are a gap between what is and what could be.

o   There is great power in processing tensions and processing them is a focus of Holacracy.  Many times they can be relieved by simple expression and asking, “is there something needed to resolve that tension?”  Note the answer and confirm resolved.

o   Tensions are processed in organized settings including tactical meetings and governance meetings.

o   Any tension is trumped by policy and agreements.  Some initial agreements should be required to join/participate.  Can include in employee handbook. 

§  Great examples of agreements to include are the purpose statement and having an open mind.

·         Dynamic Steering

o   Main focus is to keep things iterating forward.  Rather than holding off for a grand plan, take the next step.

o   Deliver in fast, small increments and get feedback.

o   Delay decisions to the last responsible moment – address each role holder’s opinion.

o   Any issue can be revisited at any time.

o   Based on agile methodology.  Check reality, true up, deal with daily.


 

Groundwork


·         Every tension that we face is one of two things:

o   A problem to solve

§  Not going, have an end point, and can be solved.

o   A polarity to leverage

§  Ongoing, no end point, not solvable, always contain mutually inclusive opposites. Examples:  Cost and Quality, Individual and Team, Compete and Collaborate, etc.

o   As an organization, our goal is to leverage all talents of the individual and collective.

§  We need a balance of all of these energies – our own fit.  We don’t want to only encourage one extreme or the other.

§  Honor polarities and have them play well in the sandbox.

§  Holacracy reduces fear by integrating perspectives and incorporating many practices that support the team.

§  Holacracy shines a light on both extremes and creates balance by integrating both.



Picture:  Leveraging Polarities.  This describes the flow when extremes are in balance.  If one is over emphasized, the energy can plunge down into fear.

“I believe the central leadership attribute is the ability to manage polarity.” –Peter Koestenbaum

·         Clear roles and accountabilities are a key component of Holacracy. 

o   All role holders consciously prioritize what needs to be done.

o   People self-police.  In Holacracy, we trust them to do so. 

o   The system is intricate in design (see details in “Structure/Roles” section below).  There is no single point of failure.

Structure/Roles




·         Each role has these items defined:

o   Purpose (one sentence)

o   Accountabilities –

§  What you are expected to take care of

§  All must end in “ing”

o   Domain (optional) - This is only used if someone has total ownership over something so much so that no one else can touch it.  (Example:  Website changes are under the domain of a website manager.)

·         General Company Circle (GCC)

o   The GCC is composed of those that currently manage our company – executives.

·         Sub-Circles

o   Each functional area or product has its own sub-circle.

o   Circles pull what they need rather than assignments being push based.

·         Governance – To dynamically steer, governance must be: distributed, evolutionary, focused on the present, grounded in the organizations purpose.

o   Sets up roles and accountabilities (does not associate to particular people)

·         Lead Link – Represents the team in the GCC.

o   There is one Lead Link per circle.  This person is a member of the GCC (management).

o   Allocates the circle’s resources

o   Assigns people to the roles that are defined by Governance.  Monitors the fit for the role, provides feedback to enhance the fit, and removes partners from roles.

o   Ensures the circle delivers on its purpose.  Assesses and defines priorities and strategies for the circle.

o   Defines and assigns metrics for the circle.

o   Cannot add accountabilities (done by governance)

o   There is a lead link for each sub-circle and one for the GCC.  The GCC Lead Link assigns the sub-circle lead links.

·         Rep Link – Represents the team in the GCC (avoids misrepresentation due to being elected in).

o   There is one Rep Link per circle.  This person is voted in by members of the circle for periods of 3, 6, 9, or 12 months.

o   Speaks up to GCC for unresolved tensions.  Helps to process. 

·         Facilitator

o   There is one Facilitator per circle.  This person is voted in for periods of 3, 6, 9, or 12 months.

o   Ensures the meeting follows the process. 

o   Stops cross-talk and discussions.

o   Guides the time during meetings.

o   This person can also have another role but must be neutral to the topics being discussed.

o   Helps to make sure that the person with authority is involved in the discussion/decision.  Projects are added to the correct person with accountability.

o   Asks the secretary to look at records to identify who is responsible when not known.

o   If no one is responsible, suggests to take the item to governance.

o   Drives people toward the next step with the right people to decide.

o   Guides the tension holder to decide the resolution.

·         Secretary

o   There is one Secretary per circle.  This person is voted in for periods of 3, 6, 9, or 12 months.

o   Has access to the database and provides answers when asked during meetings.

o   Takes notes of all action items, votes, etc. during meetings.  Inputs them into system. Distributes them to the team.

·         Misc. Notes:

o   Action items are typically assigned to the person that brought up the tension.  (Ex: Need to schedule a meeting?  They schedule it.)

o   Action items are entered into the project list they are associated with in AtTask. 

o   Each person is responsible for following up on their own action items. Self police.

o   Elections can be requested at any governance meeting.

o   It is key for the CEO to understand what distributed authority is and to give others authority for their accountabilities.

o   CEO can move into roles that are needed to energize the company and they enjoy doing such as speaking, sourcing acquisitions, etc.  They focus on their role.

 

Meetings


·         Meetings are the method by which all sensory inputs are collected.  By running them in an organized manner, each voice can be heard. 

·         Meetings centered around making the team aware of tensions and addressing the next step toward resolving the tension. 

·         A neutral facilitator is key to making this work.  This role will require training. 

·         Meetings are not mandatory but everyone is encouraged to show up.

·         When things get heated, take a “Process Time Out”.  Someone can leave if they feel heated and may not add value.

·         Each circle has their own tactical and governance meetings.  Some circles can have them less often than others.  The GCC typically has tactical meetings once per week and governance meetings once per month.

 

Tactical Meetings (for Operations)


·         Tactical meetings are typically held weekly.  There is one for the GCC and another per circle.

·         Tactical Meetings Process

o   Check in Round (Get Present)

§  Sacred space

§  Each person notices where their attention is and lets it go

§  No cross talk

o   Administrative Concerns (Clarify Timing)

§  Time allowed for meeting, breaks (if applicable)

o   Checklist Review (Transparency)

§  Facilitator reads checklist of recurring actions by role. 

§  Participants respond “check” or “no check”.  There is no discussion here.

§  First item is “Weekly review done” or “systems in place” (Each person confirms they are caught up on all information including checking emails and team reports)

§  Any other critical items that should be confirmed prior to starting (and can alter in frequency of weekly such as email blast sent).

o   Metrics Review (Visibility – where we are now)

§  Each role assigned a metric states their one #

§  Is future focused, not accounting history

§  Reports are written and linked for viewing but not reviewed as a group in detail

o   Project Updates (Communication)

§  Facilitator reads each project on the circle’s project board and asks “any updates”

§  Project owners respond “no updates” or progress since last meeting.  No general status reports, just updates. 

§  Facilitator asks each member if they have any projects to add at this time.  Secretary notes the projects.

§  Each should be worded as a past tense, completed project (such as “New team member hired”)

o   Agenda Building (Placeholders)

§  Go around in a circle and each member states any tensions that they have – in 2-3 word phrases.  These phrases are just place holders to discuss in the future and just need to be recognizable by the person that wants to bring them up.  If none, just say “none”.

§  Facilitator notes the tensions as agenda items to discuss.

§  No discussion happens yet.

o   Triage Issues (Process Tensions)

§  To process each tension:

·         Facilitator reads one tension from the list and asks the tension holder “what do you need to resolve your tension?”

o   Resolutions of tensions (examples):

§  Do something

·         Share something that was not listed on the agenda

·         Have an open discussion (if more than a few minutes, ask to continue in separate meeting)

·         Discuss in a smaller meeting with required parties

·         Capture next action step

·         Capture project

·         Share appreciation or feedback

·         Have a reaction round to something they want to share

§  Work differently

·         Governance meeting (if this is a pattern, bring it to a governance meeting)

§  Change course

·         Strategy meeting

§  Change context

·         Rep link to broader circle

·         Agenda item owner engages others as-needed.

·         Secretary captures any next-actions or projects requested and accepted

·         Facilitator asks tension holder, “Did you get what you need?”

§  The facilitator must make sure all agenda items are processed in the allotted time.  Allow time on each accordingly. 

§  Facilitator is seeking to guide the tension holder to identify the next action, not resolve the tension for all time.  Rapidly and reliably process all tensions to clarify next action and movement forward.

o   Closing Round (Harvest Learning)

§  Each person may share a closing reflection about the meeting.  No discussion.

Governance Meetings


·         Governance meetings are typically held monthly.  There is one for the GCC and another per circle.

·         Governance Meetings Process

o   Check in Round (Get Present)

§  Sacred space

§  Each person notices where their attention is and lets it go

§  No cross talk

o   Administrative Concerns (Clarify Timing)

§  Time allowed for meeting, breaks (if applicable)

o   Agenda Building (Placeholders)

§  Go around in a circle and each member states any tensions that they have – in 2-3 word phrases and rates their topic (3-1).  These phrases are just place holders to discuss in the future and just need to be recognizable by the person that wants to bring them up.  If none, just say “none”.  Ranking:  3 – greatest priority for you to complete, 2 – medium, 1 – low priority.

§  Facilitator notes the tensions as agenda items to discuss.

§  No discussion happens yet.

o   Integrative Decision Making Process:

§  Present Proposal

·         Proposer speaks – describes tension and states proposal to resolve it.

·         No discussion.  Proposer can request discussion to help craft a starting proposal, but not build consensus or integrate concerns.

·         Stated as “ING” (ex: Accessing)

·         If only a problem is stated, facilitator asks, “Do you have a starting proposal?”

§  Clarifying Questions

·         Anyone can ask a clarifying question (not give reaction, only ask question)

·         Proposer answers or states “not specified” (in the proposal)

·         No discussions/reactions/cross talk

§  Reaction Round

·         Everyone except for the proposer states their reaction, one at a time (go around the circle) or states “no reaction”

·         If someone asks a new question, it’s not answered

·         No discussions/reactions/cross talk

§  Amend and Clarify

·         Proposer can optionally clarify the intent of the proposal, further amend based on reaction, or leave as-is.

·         No discussions/reactions/cross talk

§  Objection Round

·         The facilitator asks each person in turn, “Do you see any reasons why adopting this proposal would cause harm or move us backwards”

·         Each person states “objection” or “no objection”

·         If there is an objection, it is tested and captured without discussion or cross talk. 

·         Note, most objections are not valid.  The facilitator will test it out (see below).  This is the hardest step to learn for a facilitator. 

·         An objection is valid if:

o   The proposal would degrade the Circle’s capacity

§  Is there a reason this causes harm or moves us backward?  How?  (valid)

§  …Or is it a better idea or something else we should consider as well? (if so, this is a tension, not objection – and therefore should be brought up in agenda as separate item)

o   The proposal specifically creates the Objection

§  Would that issue be created by adopting this proposal?  How?  (valid)

§  … Or is it already an issue, even if we don’t adopt this proposal? (if so, this is a tension, not objection – and therefore should be brought up in agenda as separate item)

o   The objection is either based on presently-known data or is necessarily predictive because we can’t adapt later

§  Is that based on presently known data?  (valid)

§  … Or are you anticipating what might happen (see below)

·         If anticipated, is there a reason we can’t adapt once we get more data?  (valid)

·         … Or is it safe enough to try, knowing we can revisit it at any time (not valid)

o   The objection would be a valid tension for your role to process

§  Does it limit one of your roles?  Which one? 

·         Share a concrete example of when this got in the way of you energizing one of your roles. (valid)

§  …Or are you trying to help another role in the circle (not valid)

o   The proposal breaks the rules of the Holacracy Constitution

§  Example:  NVGO – Not Valid Governance Output  -

·         Accountabilities must be ongoing activities that start with an –ing verb.  Not action steps or projects (those are handled in tactical meetings). 

·         Additional question to help objector realize the validity of their objection – “knowing this proposal is not allocating any resources, assigning roles, prioritizing work, and/or determining organizational talent, is it safe enough to try, knowing you can revisit it at any time?

·         Valid Objection Categories:

o   Causes harm

o   Moves us backwards

o   Degrades clarity

o   NVGO

o   Outside Circle’s authority

§  Integration 

o   Closing Round (Harvest Learning)

§  Each person may share a closing reflection about the meeting.  No discussion.

 

Strategy Meetings


·         Rare – used when a strategy is needed to be determined

 

Special Topic Meetings


·         Meetings that are one-off for a specific topic

·         Must know who has the accountability for the topic first and make sure they are there

·         Before start, must be clear who says when the meeting is over/done

 

Next Steps/Recommendations


·         Half day/Full day workshop on-site for Executives (need to confirm alignment/buy in before move forward.  Need them to be very aware of what this is we are getting into).

o   After that draft action plan that includes implementation and team training

·         Dani

o   Review with Jesse – get feedback

§  Sample Accountabilities doc https://glassfrog.holacracy.org/people/52

o   Test out Glass Frog Meeting system https://glassfrog.holacracy.org/organizations/621

o   Review against Tuesday/Thursday Meetings draft

 

Resources


·         Website http://holacracy.org/

·         Holacracy Resources

o   http://wonderworksconsulting.com/holacracy-resources (This is the site of the coach that we learned from.  She also helped to facilitate Zappos into becoming a Holacracy.  There is no book on this, is a blend of online info and coaching.)


·         Great introductory article on Holacracy https://medium.com/undercurrents-greatest-hits/what-is-holacracy-f50cca674f0c

·         Recommended Reading:  Getting Things Done by David Allen

·         Glass Frog – Meeting system, searchable database

No comments:

Post a Comment