Holacracy Kormányzási meeting - Governance meeting

Belépő kör (Check-in Round)

Célja: Vedd észre, hogy mire irányul a figyelmed és engedd el.

Fontos: Légy jelen és figyelj! Ekkor alapozódik meg a meeting.

Adminisztratív lépések

Célja: Tisztázni a rendelkezésre álló időt. (Pl.: befejezés időpontja, logisztika, szünet)

Napirend összeírása (Agenda Building)

Célja: Napirend összeírása címszavakban.

A résztvevők feszültségeiből a Facilitátor összeírja a napirendet. A feszültség nem kerül bemutatásra. Nincs vita, megbeszélés. 

A napirendi pontok feldolgozása

Célja: Valamennyi feszültség feldolgozása a rendelkezésre álló időben

A facilitátor a rendelkezésre álló időt arra használja, hogy lehetőleg minden napirendi pontot fel tudjanak dolgozni. Minden egyes napirendi pont egy feszültség, ami az Integratív Döntéshozási Folyamattal kerül feldolgozásra.

Záró kör:

Célja: A meeting tanulságainak az összegyűjtése

Minden résztvevő megoszthatja a meetingel kapcsolatos meglátásait. Nincsen vita, megbeszélés

Holacracy taktikai meeting - Tactical meeting process

Belépő kör (Check-in Round)

Célja: Vedd észre, hogy mire irányul a figyelmed és engedd el!

Fontos: Légy jelen és figyelj! Ekkor alapozódik meg a meeting.

Mérőszám ellenőrző kör (Metrics)

Célja: Számszerűsíthető képet alkotni a jelen helyzetről.

Minden egyes szerep, amelyhez van mérőszám rendelve, beszámol a legfrissebb adatokról.

Ellenőrző lista kör (Checklist Round)

Célja: A rendszeres feladatok áttekintése.

A Facilitátor Szerepenként felolvassa az ellenőrző listákat.

A Szerepek viselői tételesen reagálnak, miszerint ellenőrizték, és megtették a kötelességük, vagy nem ellenőrizték azokat.

Projekt frissítések (Project updates)

Célja: Lekövetni a kör kulcs projektjeinek az állását.

A Facilitátor felolvassa a Kör “projekt listájának/táblájának” a tételeit és rákérdez, hogy van-e előrelépés. A projekt tulajdonosa vagy azt mondja, hogy nincs előrelépés, vagy röviden ismerteti, hogy mi történt az utóbbi alkalom óta. Kérdéseket van lehetőség feltenni, vita, egyeztetés nincsen.

Napirend összeírása (Agenda Building)

Célja: Napirend összeírása címszavakban.

A résztvevők feszültségeiből a Facilitátor összeírja a napirendet. A feszültség nem kerül bemutatásra. Nincs vita, megbeszélés. 

Témák feldolgozása

Célja: A felsorolt feszültségek feldolgozása a rendelkezésre álló időben

Az egyes témák feldolgozásához: 

- A Facilitátor megkérdezi: Mire van szükséged?

- A napirendi pont tulajdonosa elmondja, más reagálhat

- A Titkár leírja a kért és elfogadott feladatokat

- A Facilitátor megkérdezi: Megkaptad, amire szükséged volt?

Záró kör:

Célja: A meeting tanulságainak az összegyűjtése

Minden résztvevő megoszthatja a meetingel kapcsolatos meglátásait. Nincsen vita, megbeszélés

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

I do holacracy - when hierarchy works

I experience that holacracy effectively disables, kills, slaughters, eliminates, eradicates, micromanagement.

Micromanagement usually happens, when people with authority are asked or they chose to take responsibility for the decisions of subordinates. This is never an uplifting story. It creates the image of one as a responsible, strong, capable, rescuer and the other as someone weak, incapable, who is not taking responsibility, and who needs to be saved.

Micromanagement is eliminated by the following things:

1. Distribution of authority - In holacracy power is distributed in a way that each role can and should do its job without unnecessary approvals.-

2. The integrity of roles and circles - Each role and circle is defined with a clear purpose. The role holder is firstly responsible to fulfill that purpose via her accountabilities. That makes a deeper commitment from the role holder reducing the chance of pushing responsibility away.

3. Defined domains - Since domains and accountabilities are defined for each role, any peer may express their tension if the work on your part is not done or not done according to what is the common understanding of your role's purpose within the circle. If the role of your peer is blocked, he can ask wether your role needs help, he may take individual actions and if the case is severe he may propose that certain accountabilities of your role are to be taken to make the work more even and fluent.

4. Healthy hierarchy - Or in other words, natural hierarchy. As no cellular structure is interested in molecular issues by its nature, no super circle is dealing with the issues of roles in the sub-circle. By its nature a governance meeting (derived from the constitution) is simply dealing with locally felt tensions that affect the present operation. In any super-circles the rep links and lead links present their tensions as speakers of the sub-circle, never as one role within that.

Where micromanagement may happen is the cooperation of a role and the lead link role within the same circle. But I experience that those partners who hold clarified roles, understand their purposes and hold themselves accountable are not the ones (or they are very hard) to micromanage. Also the lead link role is not a typical managerial role. It is just another role serving the circles purpose that can be criticized, helped, and further clarified.

Welcome to the world of pain felt, responsibility taken, decisions made and work done where and when it should be!

I do Holacracy 10. - meetings, what are they for?

One day a colleague came to me and asked when should their (bizdev) circle members talk about all those customer and market news they have discovered if there is no place for that in the governance and the tactical meeting agenda.

Well, I didn't have a ready answer. I asked about his tension and his suggestion to resolve it, and it became clear that they needed a... tadaaam... meeting to share information.

It became clear for me that day that holacratic meetings are primarily for collective decision making. Tactical meetings help the transformation of tensions to activity. Governance meetings help to transform tensions to conscious forms of cooperation. And you may hold several other meetings to:

- Share information, discuss learnings from the customer, the market or your field

- Brainstorm, capture ideas

- Analyze, build strategy

- Interview, coach, train, etc...

For me these meetings seem to be primarily for channeling information among the participants. These are conversations and definitely not decision making forums.

If a circle works in a constantly changing environment the members will have a higher need to share updates. Sales or product development will need more meetings than accounting where policies mostly cover the flow of information.

From another point of view if you have tensions based on risks, you better evolve them to policies. If you find tensions based on loosing opportunities, you may suggest more intense communication. 

One thing is for sure. Once you tried holacratic meetings you will find a healthy need to have every meeting facilitated by "someone", decisions captured by "someone" (like a secretary). I have written "someone", because both the facilitator and the secretary have a specific mission that is related to decisions made in the circle. 

What are your meeting experiences in holacracy?

I do Holacracy 8. - getting tactical

The tactical board is something I first saw in Vienna during a Holacracy teaser workshop. It contains three sections:
- Key accountabilities relevant for the circle
- Metrics that indicate the circles performance toward the mission
- Projects and next action.

So after defining all things there were to be defined in the circle, I ordered a bunch of corkboards, pins and post-its. Sometimes post-its need pins as well. It's hard to stick to the new way of things, isn't it.

Again it is important to note that according to the holacracy constitution the lead link supposed to create the metrics, KPIs, strategies for the circle. I decided to work it out through a workshop to maximize personal involvement.

I called for a workshop, where we brainstormed over accountabilities and metrics for the circle. I strongly advise you not to have more than 7 things listed. Please feel free to collect as many as you find, but later cut it down to maximum seven, possibly less.

Once you collected them, the best is to test them right away! Have we done "A", "B", or "C" accountability the past month? And the past 90 days? Does the question sound good? Is the answer relevant? Is it really indicating growth, or any move forward? If not, why is it misleading? Learn from testing, like IT developers do!

It encountered a situation where I had to define the main difference between metrics and accountabilities. It may sound dull once you learnt it, but the first time everything is new. So whenever you answer by stating it is done, or it is not done, than it is an accountability (or a project). When you write down numbers that indicate the performance of the past month, you have written metrics

After having all the accountabilities and metrics you should collect all the next actions and projects. This is a paralel work. Distribute post-its, pens, pins. On every post-it write the name of the project or next action, and also the role accountable for it.

How did you do it? Did you use boards or online tools?

I do Holacracy 7. - facilitation tips

There are some key factors for effective meeting facilitation even when the holacracy constitution inclues the meeting steps. Even when people seem to be open and willing to participate.

Defining circles, roles and stategies may take longer, may need more questions and a longer response time. Integrating relevant responses may take time as well.

Procrastination is an evil thing. It can steal your time even when you have minutes or seconds. Therefore I focus on minimizing question and answer time. 

If you have a day to answer, you tend to use the whole day for thinking, if you have five hours, you tend to use all of it hours. But if you have only 60 seconds, surprisingly you are able to give almost the same quality answer or decision. The reason is that most of the time we already have our ready preferences, reasons and answers unconsciously.

To get fast access to these ready answers I usually give a 60 second timeframe when the answer is a list of words and a 120 minutes timeframe when I ask for a sentence.

About collaboration tools: I love to use a whiteboard when listing values, ideas. To prioritize I ask the circle members to stand up, grab a marker and mark the preferred words on the board. Post its are great as well. A snapshot of the whiteboard posted to a g+ community supports the participation of group members who join via hangouts or skype.

About understanding each other: In my experience the first thing to take into consideration, that some people focus on solving problems and some focus on setting goal. According to Bobb Biehl's work goal setters prefer to add new elements to the current system, while problem solvers prefer to fix already existing element the same time. Therefore their tensions are not understood easily by the other. While supporting the integrated decision making process you need to help the folks with different paradigms to respect and to understand each others tensions.

I do Holacracy 5. - defining strategy

What is a strategy? For me strategy is the plan that incorporatest the essential milestones in a given timeframe to go towards the fulfillment of the mission.

What is it good for? As far as I understood the strategy of a Holacracy circle is basicly a tool. A tool helping practical decisions or when there are questions to be clarified.

It certainly should have a focus. It is good if there are issues beside the focus wich have emphasis on. I read that it is practical to define what the strategic focus has emphasis over.

As I reed in the constitution the Lead link has the authority to define the strategy of the circle. I assume this authority is useful when circle members do not have the skills to plan together. I prefer to facilitate planning together.

To define a strategic focus I call for a retrospective meeting. This type of meeting helps clarifying the pros and the cons of the current operation and helps alligning with the mission time to time. I ask a series of questions:
- What do we consider positive about the current operation? What goals have we reached? What problems ha we solved?
- What do we consider positive about the current operation? What problems do we have? What goals are we still far from?
- What are we missing in the current operation that could make a significant difference if it was avilable? What ideas have we had already about improving our operation?
- What are we grateful for regarding the past interval/months/quarter?

Answering these questions give the benefits of being conscious about our:
- successes, achievements, milestones
- strengths
- weaknesses
- ideas we already for improvement

I have to point out that the fourth question aims to touch our humane dimension to motivate and connects us with the issues previously uncovered and strengthen our allignment.

I usually work with a whiteboard, and after asking all these questions we have a list of suggestions that are waiting to be prioritized. The answers are mainly coming from the third question (suggestions, things we miss, ideas we already had).

When prioritizing, I ask all role filling people to mark the issues that they find it essential to focus on. It may be one or two rounds as you prefer. At the end we have a one word or one sentence focus, and one to three more issues that have a secondary emphasis.

And you? What are your practices? What questions do you use? Are you a lead link defining strategy alone or with some consulting? Or do you work it out together?

I do Holacracy 3. - the first meeting

Yes! I am really doing it. My first facilitated meeting was a disaster. Everyone hated me. I had a headache that lasted from early afternoon to the evening. Focusing on the guys was devastatingly tiring. We were 9 people sitting together with no break continuously fighting for 150 mins instead of the predicted 90.

We used to have a so called management meeting that includes the owners and the responsibles of HR, finance, office, pm, marketing. It is usually about trying to clarify problems that result in opening newer and newer nuances in one topic and realizing after 45 minutes that we are still at the beginning.

Apart from the fact that my first holacracy meeting was a nightmare for everybody. We REALLY SOLVED TENSIONS. I had the chance to observe interesting patterns on my collagues, that you may find useful to prepare for if you try this game in the future:
- Emotional instability, repeating arguments, preparing for defense.
- Thinking aloud and talking for a long time just to finally come up with a tension, or worse a new approach.
- A vague tension that feels to be adressed, panic when its not. Its a kind of fear of taking responsability and letting go of unimportant, but disturbing things.
- Starting a topic and loosing focus right after it.
- Fighting for attention.
- Fighting to be heard, fear of being unheard.

Naturally this meeting was not by the letters of the Holacracy constitution. How could it be… First of all only two of us red the constitution before. I told the others the rules and was glad that they engaged and followed. Great collagues. I did not separate the tactical and the governance flow.

I have to highlight that I had experience in moderation and facilitation of meetings and trainings before. Hardest three things are when facilitating the integral decision making process:
- Protecting the time and the attention of the suggestion maker, making people answering him/her, not me, the facilitator.
- Saying no when people want to talk (express ideas, etc) and it is not their turn. Making them understand that they will have their time
- Making people express themselves by tensions, suggestion, objections, clarifying question

Are you doing Holacracy? Have you facilitated or participated meetings before? What were your experiences?