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 6. - defining circles, roles

The first circle to define really should be the main (anchor) circle of the company. But I have to admit, I did not have the authority to to start with the anchor circle. The core activity of our company is software development, and since we were managing it with agile methods it was in quite a good condition. But the supporting processes, like HR, finances, IT support, bizdev really needed more consciousness.

I knew that I couldn't have started setting up circles without clarifying the purpose statement of the company. We worked on the purpose, on values and principles, but we did not set up the General Company Circle. This caused hardships later on but that will be an other post. It seemed to be my only option then.

So firsty I worked on the supporting processes. Here are the steps:

I define Holacracy circles by making the following steps:
- Define its mission. How to is here…
- Define its roles or sub circles, and define their mission statement as well.
- Define the most important accountabilities.
- Define its most important policies.
- Hold elections for their roles
- Define strategies
- Define domains, scopes, whatever is left.
- Set up its tactical meeting table or tool.
Now let's see it in details!

After creating the mission sentence I call everybody who is expected to contribute for the circle to join a brainstorming and map all the roles, ideas, processes that are necessary to fulfill the circles mission.

Since we people are extremely different creatures some of us may focus naturally on abstract ideas while others on problems, roles or values. Anyhow you should be able to categorize all ideas into:
- roles (possible sub-circles)
- accountabilities, that can be bound to specific roles
- policies
- projects or next actions

Roles should have their mission sentences as well, to have a proper allignment, so the next step is to work out these. Also after defining the roles you should have an idea about who will fill them, so it is time to make elections.

At his point we have spent at least 1,5 to 4,5 hours in 1 to 3 meetings together depending on the number of the participants, the number of the roles to be defined and the efficiency of our commmmunication and the meeting facilitation.

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 the efficiency in alligning with the former goals. You can read about my method and experiences here.

At this point we are possibly after our 3rd or 4th 90 minutes long meeting. We have a deeper understanding of ourselves (in the context of the organisation), our contribution to the company (the super-circle), our connections in the processes. So after working on the organisation now it is time to work in the organisation.

Setting up a tactical board or shaping an online tool for this is quite relieving for those who are practical and waited to get things done during the past meetings. At the end of the meeting you have all your key accountabilities, KPI-s, and all relevant projects and next action on the board or in the tool.

The setup process is over. You can govern yourselves and do your tactical meetings as written in the constitution.

Do you have a better way? Do you, did you do it differently? What are your steps? What problems did you face when trying this?

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?