2014. július 18., péntek

I do Holacracy 14. - Operation System, but who is the User?

I often read that holacracy is described as an operation system. While I completely agree with the similarities I miss more details and sense something funny in this comparison. If we look at holacracy as an OS, we have to admit that we are rather the hardware of the system, than its users. But then who is the user?

In case of organizational structures and operations most often we find the metaphor of a machine. In the metaphor there are the C-level people and the board members who give direction to the machine. They can be considered the users. And there are those who run the machine, they are the bigger and the smaller cogwheels, who are definitely not users, rather parts of the machine.



The metaphor of the machine is ok until you are a user not a part of the machine and the concept of 'spare parts' does not emerge.

By experience and analysis I tell you Holacracy is more than an operation system. To describe its further qualities I use the four quadrants of the Integral Theory. If you need detailed explanation on the quadrants you may find this useful. 



Briefly Integral Theory says everything has four natures. A thing can be viewed individually in itself, or as part of a collective existence. Also everything has an exterior, measurable, outer nature and an unmeasurable interior.

If we view holacracy by its objective (exterior and individual) nature, we see 
- An operation system for purposeful organizations,
- That enables agile governance and tactical operations. 
- It also has a capacity to harness more personal power via processing tensions
Almost all descriptions stop here.

If we view it by its interobjective nature (exterior and collective) we find
- That the so called OS serves as a platform for more software applications.
- The OS and the Apps together represent a highly differentiated, very conscious cooperational form
- Which has the competitive advantage of differentiating those parts of it that are necessary to run with more consciousness and leaving the others as they are.
- It is written in legal language and updated by versions providing a common denominator for our technology and law defined world.
- It has a capacity to transform machine-like and family-like companies to organism-like ones 

The subjective nature (interior and individual) of holacracy could be grasped from the point of view of a single practitioner. It is experienced as a system that:
- Pushes me to complete self-management what is personally fulfilling.
- Provides me clarity in the organization, in my circles, roles, accountabilities, and crystal clear alignment of my purposeful contribution
- Provides me power and space to contribute and means through which I may ask for help and influence change.
- Provides me an everyday experience about the border of my work roles and my private self

The intersubjective nature (interior and collective) is touched by the last slide of the taster workshop, which runs like 'it takes a village to raise an organization'. This intersubjective nature is
- Our shared story of the evolutionary purpose
- The capacity to transform our shared beliefs about cooperation, self-management and self-leadership
- To opportunity for us to evolve our organizational cooperation to a living entity
At this point we have found the User! :-)

To sum it all up.

Holacracy viewed in itself is an operational system for purposeful organizations. Holacracy is experienced empowering by all practitioner partners in the organization, who slowly turn to self-managing role holders withclarity about their work and their private self. Holacracy in a greater context is a very competitive agile cooperation form that may be amended with more compatible applications. It is laid down in a constitution in legal language. It has the competitive advantage of differentiating those parts of it that are necessary to run with more consciousness and leaving the others as they are. Holacracy when practiced together has a certain cultural capacity to transform and transcend our shared beliefs, so we can start to live the story of the living purpose of our cooperation.

Bit more than an operating system, isn't it.








Most of us still look at organizations with the machine paradigm. But in that paradigm holacracy is not fully observable. It simply does not fit in. To grasp more about it first imagine that your organization is rather a living organism than a machine with frictional parts.

2014. július 3., csütörtök

Az integratív döntéshozási folyamat

Ezt a módszert a Holacracy kormányzási meetingjein (governance meeting) használjuk feszültségek, problémák feldolgozására és végül döntéshozásra. A Módszer azt szolgálja, hogy szervezettebb legyen az adott kör működése, így hatékonyabban töltse be a küldetését. Ehhez megfogalmazzuk a feszültségeink és azokat feloldó javaslatokat teszünk párbeszéd és vita nélkül.

A módszer a következő 6 lépés betartása révén segít abban, hogy növeljük a megértést és a felelős, együttműködő megoldáskeresést. A folyamatot egy választott Facilitátor kíséri végig, ő segít a résztvevőknek betartani a lépések sorát és tartani a teret a felszólalásra jogosultak számára. 



Az integratív döntéshozási folyamat

1. Javaslattétel
Kié a szó? Csak a javaslattevőé, kivéve ha segítséget kér valakitől, akkor az aki felszólal helyette.

A javaslattevő teret kap, hogy megfogalmazza a feszültséget és tegyen arra egy feloldó javaslatot vita és hozzászólás nélkül. A javaslattevő opcionálisan kérhet hozzászólást, vitát a javaslat tisztázása érdekében, de nem azzal a céllal, hogy konszenzust keressen, vagy hogy előterjessze az aggályait.

2. Tisztázó kérdések
Kié a szó? Bárki kérdezhet, a javaslattevő válaszol; ismétlés

Bárki feltehet tisztázó kérdéseket, hogy további információkat kapjon és tisztázza, amit nem ért a Javaslatból. A javaslattevő megválaszolhatja a kérdést, vagy jelezheti hogy az nem releváns. Reakciók, párbeszéd, vita nem megengedett.

3. Reakciók
Kié a szó? Mindenkié, kivéve a javaslattevőt.

Minden jelenlévő teret kap reagálni a Javaslatra, annak illeszkedésére a jelen működésbe. A reakcióknak E/1 és E/3 személyben kell megfogalmazni, "én" vagy "ő" üzeneteknek kell lenniük. Válasz, vita nem megengedett.

4. Pontosítás és tisztázás
Kié a szó? Csak a javaslattevőé.

A javaslattevőnek, lehetősége van mélyebben tisztázni a Javaslat szándékát, a visszajelzések alapján pontosítani a Javaslatot, illetve továbblépni. Vita, hozzászólás nem megengedett. A facilitátor leállít bármilyen vitát, megjegyzést, megszólalást.

5. Ellenvetések
Kié a szó? Bárkié, a javaslattevőt is beleértve. Sorban (körben) haladva, egyszerre csak egy beszél.

A facilitátor mindenkitől megkérdezi: "Látsz bármilyen okot, ami miatt e Javaslat elfogadása kárt okoz, vagy hátráltat minket?" (a válasz az “Ellenvetés” maga) Az Ellenvetések elhangzanak, azokat tesztelik és leírják, vita és hozzászólás nélkül. Amennyiben nincs ellenvetés, a Javaslat elfogadásra kerül.

6. Integráció
Kié a szó? Többnyire az ellenvetést megfogalmazóé és a javaslattevőé; a többiek kérés esetén segíthetnek.

A cél egy módosított javaslat mefogalmazása, amely ellen már mincs ellenvetés és a javaslattevő feszültségét is feloldja. Egyszerre egy ellenvetés legyen a fókuszban. Ha mindegyik integrálásra kerül, újra az Ellenvetési kör következik.

Forrás

2014. július 1., kedd

I do holacracy - leadership decomposed, redefined

Leadership is a key element in any organization. While it is defined in several ways almost all leadership concepts work with the following core elements:

building trust, credibility
defining a purpose, a vision, setting values
building sustainable systems to process stuff
supporting people in finding motivation, and fulfilment


This is easy to read but harder to practice. While Holacracy often receives the true critique that it is complex, in reality any cooperation and leadership model has similarly complexity and practical hardships if all elements of it are practiced honestly and at once.

Within its closed system Holacracy incorporates a set of functions that build up to an evolutionary leadership function. I differentiated the following groups incorporating evolutionary leadership sub-functions:

1. Directing functions
- Evolutionary purpose
- Policies

Directing functions help in asking the right questions. Are we heading for the purpose? Are we aligned? Are we acting according to the policies? Purposes and policies have an evolution as tensions surface.

2. Structural and process functions
- Circle and role structure
- Governance and operation processes
The structure of circles incorporating each other and the roles result in an aligned tree of purposes. Changes in the structure are also evolutionary. The processes ensure the evolutionary operation.

3. Roles enhancing purposeful cooperation
- Lead link - holding the purpose of the circle
- Facilitator - running the meeting and putting out fire
- Secretary - steward of all records
- Rep link - representing the circle, holding the purpose one level up 

These roles must be filled to run the circle. It is key that the lead link may not overlap with the rep link and the facilitator. Otherwise the lead link may turn out to be a single point of failure or a role-holding Partner with too much power. 


4. Self-leadership, self-management
- Autonomous work,
- Tension driven proposal
- Right to vote
- Right to take individual action


Self-management is also a key concept in Holacracy. Work is to be done in a GTD manner. For that the roles are a hundred percent empowered by the Holacracy Constitution. Roles have authority to do their work and to impact the way the circle is run.


As you see holacracy is not dealing with people. It is channeling personal energies via roles and processes for the purpose. People lead themselves. Also it does not describe a system further then basic cooperative decision makings and election.


All these do not build up traditional leadership. These are a set of balanced functions that enhance the organization to make changes and steps in small increments, validating them all the time. People have space to grow up and act as adults and learn as children.