You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A “Role” is an organizational entity with a “Purpose” to express, “Domains” to control, and “Accountabilities” to perform.
1.2 Responsibilities of Role-Filling
When filling a Role, a Partner accepts the following responsibilities:
1.2.1 Processing Tensions
A Partner is responsible for sensing “Tensions” for that Role and processing them. A Tension is a gap between what is, and what could be better.
1.2.2 Processing Accountabilities
A Partner is responsible for breaking down their Role’s Accountabilities into Projects and Next-Actions to move them forward. A Project is an outcome to achieve, and a Next-Action is a concrete, physical action that could be executed immediately if time allowed.
1.2.3 Processing Projects
A Partner is responsible for breaking down all of their Projects into Next-Actions.
1.2.4 Tracking Projects & Next-Actions
A Partner is responsible for tracking their Projects and Next-Actions in a tangible system outside their mind (database, list…), and keeping this system up to date.
1.2.5 Directing Attention & Resources
A Partner is responsible for consciously and continually choosing which Projects and Next-Actions to work on or to spend resources towards, among all available options.
1.3 Authority Over Domains
When filling a Role with a Domain, a Partner has the authority to control (authorize or restrict) how other Roles can impact this Domain, or to establish ongoing authorizations or restrictions via Policies for this Domain.
1.4 Authority to Act
When filling a Role, a Partner can take any action to express the Role’s Purpose or Accountabilities, as long as it doesn’t impact the Domain of another Role without permission.
A Circle is a Role authorized to break itself down into sub-Roles, so multiple people can work together to express the Circle’s overall Purpose and Accountabilities.
2.1.1 Role Definition
The Roles of a Circle can only be defined through the governance process detailed in Article III.
2.1.2 Policy Definition
Policies to control a Circle’s Domain are also defined through the governance process detailed in Article III.
2.1.3 Roles May Impact Circle Domain
Any Role within a Circle can generally impact the Circle’s Domain without explicit permission, unless the Domain was delegated to another Role within the Circle.
2.1.4 Delegation of Control
A Circle can delegate part or all of its Domain to a Role within the Circle, in which case that Role then controls that part of the Domain. One caveat: that Role still cannot spend resources in the Domain or give away control of the Domain, unless explicitly authorized to do so.
2.2 Circle Lead Link
Each Circle has a “Lead Link”, as defined in APPENDIX A.
2.2.1 Holds Undifferentiated Functions
The Lead Link holds all the Accountabilities and authorities defined on the Circle but not yet delegated to a Role within the Circle.
2.2.2 Defines Priorities & Strategies
The Lead Link can define work priorities and ongoing “Strategies” for the Circle.
2.2.3 Amending Lead Link Role
You can delegate functions from the Lead Link to other Roles via governance, but you can never add functions to the Lead Link.
2.3 Circle Participation & Governance
2.3.1 Core Circle Members
By default, anyone filling a Role in a Circle is a “Core Circle Member” and can participate in the governance process of the Circle. This includes the Circle’s Lead Link, and any Rep Links or Cross Links appointed to the Circle.
2.3.2 Exclusion for Multi-Filled Roles
If a Role is filled by multiple people, a Circle can adopt a Policy saying that only one of those people gets to be a Core Circle Member representing that Role in governance. If so, the person appointed for that Role acts like a Rep Link and channels tensions from other people filling the Role into the governance process.
2.3.3 Exclusion for De Minimis Allocation
If a person is doing very little work for a Role, the Lead Link can decide that person is not a Core Circle Member.
2.3.4 Special Appointments of Core Members
The Lead Link can appoint someone outside the Circle to be a Core Circle Member. This can also be done through a Policy.
2.4 Role Assignment
The Lead Link can assign any Partner of the Organization to fill a Role of the Circle, unless a Policy says otherwise.
2.4.1 Unfilled Roles
When a Role is unfilled, the Lead Link automatically fills it by default.
2.4.2 Assigning Roles to Multiple People
A Role can be assigned to multiple people as long as it’s clear who holds accountabilities and authorities for specific situations facing the Role. One way of making this clear is to assign a “Focus” to each person filling the Role.
2.4.3 Resignation from Roles
Someone can resign from a Role assignment at any time by giving notice to the Circle’s Lead Link, unless they’ve agreed otherwise.
2.5 Elected Roles
Every Circle has the following Elected Roles: “Facilitator”, “Secretary”, and “Rep Link”, as defined in APPENDIX A.
2.5.1 Elections & Eligibility
Any Core Circle Member is eligible for an Elected Role, except the Lead Link who cannot be Facilitator or Rep Link.
2.5.2 Election Terms & Revisiting
Elected Roles are elected for a term defined during the election, but anyone can call for a new election at any time.
2.5.3 Amending Elected Roles
A Circle can add Accountabilities or Domains to its Elected Roles and can remove these additions later, but cannot remove anything else from its Elected Roles. A Circle cannot change Elected Roles from other circles, including any Rep Links from its Sub-Circles.
2.5.4 Surrogates for Elected Roles
When an Elected Role is unfilled or its Role-filler absent, it is temporarily filled in this order: (a) by an alternate person appointed by the Role-filler, (b) by the Facilitator, (c) by the Secretary, (d) by the Lead Link, or (e) by the first Core Circle Member to volunteer.
2.6 Sub-Circles
A Role within a Circle can become a Circle itself; it then becomes a “Sub-Circle” to its containing “Super-Circle”
2.6.1 Formation of Sub-Circles
A Circle can create a Sub-Circle through governance by either (a) expanding an existing Role into a Circle, or (b) integrating several existing Roles into a new Circle.
2.6.2 Modification of Sub-Circles
A Circle can modify the Purpose, Domain, or Accountabilities of its Sub-Circles through governance, just like its other Roles.
2.6.3 Removal of Sub-Circles
A Circle can remove a Sub-Circle through governance by (a) Removing the Sub-Circle entirely, including all Roles within it, (b) Collapsing the Sub-Circle into a single Role, thus removing all Roles within it, or (c) Dissolving the Sub-Circle’s boundary, so that all Roles within it are absorbed by the Circle.
2.6.4 Lead Link to Sub-Circle
A Role that is also a Sub-Circle still has someone assigned to fill it just like any other Role. That person becomes the Lead Link to the Sub-Circle.
2.6.5 Rep Link to Super-Circle
The Rep Link elected by a Circle automatically becomes a Core Circle Member of its Super-Circle.
2.7 Cross Linking
A Circle can define a “Cross Link Policy” through governance to invite another entity (the “Linked Entity”) to have a representative in that Circle or any of its Sub-Circles (the “Target Circle”).
2.7.1 Cross Link Role
The Linked Entity and the Target Circle are connected by a “Cross Link Role”. It functions as a Rep Link for the Linked Entity to channel tensions into the Target Circle.
2.7.2 Cross Link Assignment
A Cross Link Role is filled by the Linked Entity, however it chooses, unless the Linked Entity is a group with no single nexus of authority. In that case, the Target Circle gets to decide who represents the group, unless a relevant Policy or agreement says otherwise.
2.7.3 Cross Link Authority
In the Target Circle, a Cross Link has the same authority as any other Circle Member, as long as it exercises it for the Purpose of the Target Circle.
2.7.4 Additions to Cross Link Role
A Linked Entity can modify its Cross Link Role through governance, and the modifications apply in the Target Circle. A Target Circle can also modify a Cross Link Role, but the modifications do not apply in the Linked Entity.
2.7.5 Boundaries and Delegation
If a Circle is invited to appoint a Cross Link, or required to accept one, it can delegate that connection to one of its own Roles or Sub-Circles. No other Circle can bypass this delegation by directly specifying one of its Roles or Sub-Circles – it’s up to the Circle how it wants to delegate a Cross Link connection.
The only valid “Governance” acts of a Circle are to create or amend Roles, Policies, or Sub-Circles, or to hold elections. Nothing else can be decided or captured in the Governance records of a Circle.
3.2 Threshold for Governance Changes
For a proposed Governance change to be processed and accepted, it must meet some criteria:
3.2.1 Criteria for Valid Proposals
A Proposal is generally valid for processing only if it helps one of the Proposer’s roles, unless the Proposer has permission to process tensions for another Role. However, evolving the Governance to better reflect what’s already happening is always allowed, even if unrelated to the Proposer’s roles, as is calling for an election.
3.2.2 Criteria for Valid Objections
An Objection is a Tension that would be caused by adopting the Proposal. However, to be valid, an Objection must meet all the following criteria:
If the Objection were unaddressed, the Proposal would hurt the Circle, not just fail to improve it,
The Objection would be created specifically by adopting the Proposal, and thus wouldn’t exist if the Proposal were dropped,
The Objection either arises from known data, or, if predictive, there would not be an opportunity to adapt before significant harm could be done,
The Objection would be a valid Tension to process under the terms of Section 3.2.
Alternatively, an Objection is valid regardless of the above if it’s caused because the Proposal infringes on the rules of the Constitution.
3.2.3 Discerning Objections
An Objection is valid when the Objector can present a reasonable argument for why the Objection meets each criterion.
3.2.4 Representing Linked Circles
Links from other Circles can make Proposals or raise Objections by following specific rules:
The Lead Link of the Circle represents the Super-Circle, and their Proposals or Objections are valid as long as they would also be valid in that Super-Circle.
The Rep Link of a Sub-Circle represents the entire Sub-Circle, and is considered to fill that entire Sub-Circle Role for the purpose of testing Proposals and Objections.
A Cross Link represents its Linked Entity, so their Proposals or Objections are generally valid as long as they would also be valid in that Linked Entity, with some exceptions.
3.3 Governance Meetings
This Section defines the Governance Meeting process. Governance Meetings are facilitated by the Facilitator, and scheduled by the Secretary on a regular basis, or on request from a Core Circle Member.
3.3.1 Attendance
All Core Circle Members of a Circle are allowed to attend Governance Meetings. Generally no one else can attend; however, the Lead Link and any Rep Links can each invite one additional person just to help process a specific Tension in the area they represent.
3.3.2 Quorum
By default, there is no minimum number of participants required for a Governance Meeting, and all Governance changes are valid regardless of attendance.
3.3.3 Agenda Building
A Governance Meeting agenda is built on the fly by the Facilitator capturing agenda items from Core Circle Members.
Each agenda item represents one Tension, and is captured by a short label, without discussion.
The Facilitator decides the order in which to process agenda items.
Core Circle Members process their agenda items one at a time using the Integrative Decision-Making Process, or the Integrative Election Process for elections.
3.3.4 Integrative Decision-Making Process
The Integrative Decision-Making Process follows these steps to address the Proposer’s Tension:
Present Proposal: The Proposer may explain the Tension and present a Proposal to address it. No discussion, unless the Proposer requests assistance from others to help craft a Proposal.
Clarifying Questions: Participants can ask questions to the Proposer for the sole purpose of better understanding the Proposal. The Proposer can choose to respond or not. No discussion.
Reaction Round: One at a time, participants can share reactions to the Proposal without engaging the Proposer directly. No discussion.
Amend & Clarify: If desired, the Proposer can amend and/or clarify the Proposal to better address the original Tension. No discussion.
Objection Round: One at a time, participants including the Proposer can raise Objections to the Proposal. The Facilitator can test Objections (see Section 3.3.7.) If no Objection is raised, the Proposal is adopted. If Objections are raised, the Facilitator captures them all before processing them during Integration.
Integration: For each Objection, the Facilitator facilitates a discussion to reach an amended Proposal that resolves both tensions sensed by the Objector and the Proposer. Further rules of Integration are detailed in Section 3.3.8. Once all captured Objections are integrated, the amended Proposal goes through another Objection Round to surface any additional Objections.
3.3.5 Integrative Election Process
The Integrative Election Process follows these steps:
Describe Role: The Facilitator summarizes the function of the elected Role and announces an election term.
Fill Out Ballots: Each participant fills out a ballot with their name, and the name of the Circle Member they believe would be the best fit for the Role.
Nomination Round: The Facilitator reads aloud each ballot, one at a time, asking each nominator why they think their nominee is the best fit for the Role. No discussion.
Nomination Change Round: Participants are allowed to change their nomination based on the information they heard in the previous step. No discussion, except that anyone making a change can explain what swayed them.
Make a Proposal. The Facilitator proposes electing the candidate with the most nominations. In case of a tie, the Facilitator can blindly select one tied nominee randomly, or invoke one of several tie-breaking criteria defined here.
Process Proposal: The Facilitator processes the Proposal with the Integrative Decision-Making Process, starting directly with the Objection round, and asking the proposed candidate last. If any Objection is raised, the Facilitator can choose to withdraw the Proposal and go back to the previous step to propose another candidate with the next-most nominations.
3.3.6 Testing Proposals
The Facilitator can test a Proposal by asking the Proposer to present an actual example of how their Tension showed up during the work of one of their Roles (as required in Section 3.2.1). The Facilitator can test a Proposal when it is presented or during Integration, and can judge only whether a case has been presented, not its validity. If the Proposal is disallowed, the Facilitator drops it immediately.
3.3.7 Testing Objections
The Facilitator can test Objections when they are raised or during Integration. An Objection is valid only if the Objector can provide a reasonable argument for why the Objection meets the criteria defined in Section 3.2.3. The Facilitator can judge only whether this argument has been presented, not its accuracy. However, for Objections for Non-Valid Governance Ouput (section 3.2.2(e)), the Facilitator can ask the Secretary to interpret the Objection’s accuracy, and dismiss the Objection if the Secretary deems it inaccurate.
3.3.8 Rules of Integration
The Objector is responsible for amending the Proposal to address the Objection. If the Objector stops trying to amend the Proposal, the Objection is considered abandoned.
Core Circle Members can ask clarifying questions to the Proposer to better understand the Tension behind the Proposal, and the Proposer has a duty to answer. If they don’t, the Proposal is considered abandoned.
When the Objector has suggested an amended Proposal and a rationale for why it would address the Tension behind the Proposal, if the Proposer disagrees, the Proposer is responsible for explaining why the amended Proposal would fail to address the Tension, or for suggesting an alternative version that would.
3.3.9 Operational Decisions in Governance Meetings
Operational decisions shouldn’t be made in Governance meetings, but if it’s convenient to take on a Project or Next-Action, they can be captured individually as long as they are not part of the formal output of the meeting.
3.4 Governance Outside of Meetings
Governance changes can be made outside of Governance meetings, by submitting a Proposal by email and explicitly receiving “No Objection” back from all Core Circle Members.
3.5 Interpretation of Governance
Any Partner can interpret the Governance affecting their Role, and in case of a disagreement, can ask the Secretary to make a ruling interpretation.
3.5.1 Secretary Interpretation Trumps
When the Secretary makes a formal interpretation of Governance, it trumps any other interpretation and becomes the rule.
3.5.2 Super-Circle Interpretation Trumps
An interpretation made by the Super-Circle’s Secretary trumps the interpretation of the Circle’s Secretary.
3.5.3 Published Interpretations as Common Law
Secretaries’ formal interpretations of Governance may be published, and will act as Governance until the Governance records are changed through normal channels.
3.5.4 Striking Governance
A Secretary can strike any unconstitutional Governance from the records of its Circle or any Sub-Circle.
3.6 Process Breakdown
When a Circle evidences a pattern of acting outside the rules of the Constitution, it is called a “Process Breakdown” and the following special rules apply until it is resolved:
3.6.1 Upon Failed Governance
A Process Breakdown can be declared when the Circle gets stuck and fails to process an agenda item in a Governance Meeting.
3.6.2 Upon Process Auditing
A Circle can be audited by its Super-Circle, and if a Process Breakdown is evidenced, the restorative process (Section 3.6.3) is triggered. The Role accountable for this auditing is the Super-Circle’s Facilitator, unless that person is also the Lead Link or Facilitator of the Circle. In that case, a default sequence of other roles is accountable for this auditing.
3.6.3 Process Restoration
The restorative process grants special authorities to resolve the situation: (i) the Process Auditor can take over the Facilitator or Secretary Role, (ii) the Process Auditor takes on a Project to restore due-process in the Circle, and (iii) the Facilitator gains the authority to judge the accuracy of any arguments supporting a Proposal or an Objection.
3.6.4 Escalation of Process Breakdown
If a Process Breakdown in a Circle is not resolved by its Super-Circle, that’s then considered a Process Breakdown of the Super-Circle, thus escalating the breakdown further.
3.6.5 Process Restoration Considered In-Process
The rules of Process Breakdown and actions taken under these rules are not considered a breach of this Constitution.
Article IV covers the rules about Operational Processes – the ways Circle Members synchronize and align their work across Roles.
4.2 Duties of Circle Members
All Circle Members have the following duties toward other Circle Members.
4.2.1 Duty of Transparency
Each Circle Member is expected to provide transparency to other Circle Members, upon request, by:
Projects & Next-Actions: Sharing the Projects & Next-Actions tracked for any of their Roles of the Circle.
Relative Priority: Sharing their judgment of the relative priority of any tracked Projects or Next-Actions compared to other activities.
Projections: Sharing a rough estimate of when they will likely complete a Project or a Next-Action, given current information.
Checklist Items & Metrics: During Tactical Meetings, reporting on metrics requested by the Lead Link and checklist items requested by other Circle Members.
4.2.2 Duty of Processing
Circle Members have the following duties to process requests from other Circle Members:
Requests for Processing: Upon a request to process an Accountability or a Project, Circle Members have the duty to process it into a clear Next-Action, or to get clarity on what it’s waiting for.
Requests for Projects & Next-Actions: Upon a request to take on a Project or Next-Action, a Circle Member has the duty to consider what’s requested, and to take it on if it fits one of their Accountabilities.
Requests to Impact Domain: Upon a request to impact their Role’s Domain, a Circle Member has the duty to consider the request, and if they decline to allow it, to explain why it would cause harm.
4.2.3 Duty of Prioritization
A Circle Member’s responsibility and authority for assessing where to deploy their time, attention, and other resources (see Section 1.2.5) is constrained by the following prioritization rules:
Processing Over Ad-Hoc Execution: Circle Members should prioritize processing inbound messages and requests from other Circle Members over performing Next-Actions for their Role’s work.
Requested Meetings Over Ad-Hoc Execution: Circle Members should prioritize attending a Governance or Tactical Meeting over performing Next-Actions for their Role’s work, but only if requested by another Circle Member for a specific meeting.
Circle Needs Over Individual Goals: Circle Members should prioritize in alignment with any priorities or Strategies specified by the Lead Link for the Circle over the specific goals of their own Role(s).
4.2.4 Links May Convey Duties
To aid in representing entities linked to a Circle, a Lead Link, Rep Link, or Cross Link can temporarily invite someone else to process a Tension felt within the source of the link. The invitee can then lean on the duties defined in section 4.2 as if they were a Circle Member.
4.2.5 Further Duties & Expectations
No expectations or constraints other than those defined in this Constitution and in Governance carry any weight or authority on how someone expresses the Purpose and Accountabilities of their Roles.
4.3 Tactical Meetings
Tactical Meetings are scheduled regularly by the Secretary, and use the following rules:
4.3.1 Focus & Intent
The goal of Tactical Meetings is to surface data, share progress updates, and triage tensions into Projects & Next-Actions.
4.3.2 Attendance
All Core Circle Members can attend a Tactical Meeting, and each Link can invite one person to attend from the Circle they represent in order to aid processing a Tension of that Circle.
4.3.3 Facilitation & Process
Unless otherwise defined via Policy, the Facilitator facilitates Tactical Meetings according to the following steps:
Surfacing Data: Each Circle Member reports on the completion of any recurring actions, and reports the assigned metrics.
Progress Updates: Each Circle Member reports on any progress made since the last Tactical Meeting on any Project they hold.
Triage Issues: An agenda is built on the fly, with each participant able to add agenda items. For each agenda item, the person who raised the item can engage other Circle Members in their roles and duties until Next-Actions or Projects are created that would address the Tension behind the agenda item. The Secretary captures all Projects and Next-Actions, and distributes them after the meeting.
4.3.4 Surrogate for Absent Members
When a Circle Member is absent from a Tactical Meeting, the Lead Link can act in their roles with full authority, and can accept Project and Next-Actions on their behalf. If the Lead Link is absent too, any participant can request Projects and Next-Actions from absent members, and the Secretary captures them as requests.
4.4 Individual Action
All Partners can act outside of their roles (“Individual Action”) as long as:
the Partner believes the action will resolve more Tension for the organization than it may create
there is no time to request the permissions normally required from other roles.
the action does not commit the organization’s resources or assets beyond what the Partner can otherwise commit to.
4.4.1 Communication & Restoration
After taking Individual Action, a Partner should tell any impacted Role about it, and, on their request, take on actions to resolve any Tension created by the Individual Action or refrain from taking this Individual Action again in the future.
4.4.2 Clarifying Governance
If an Individual Action becomes recurrent and isn’t already called for in the explicit Governance, the Partner should bring a Proposal to a Governance Meeting to encode it in the Governance, or should otherwise find a way to stop performing the Individual Action.
4.4.3 Priority of Corollary Requirements
When a Partner takes Individual Action, the corollary duties defined in this section 4.4 become a higher priority than any other regular activity. Failure to perform these duties suspends the Partner’s authority to take further Individual Action.
When adopting this Constitution, the Ratifiers cede their full authority into the Constitution.
5.1.1 Ratifiers Cede Authority
The Ratifiers give up their authority to operate outside of the rules of the Constitution, except for the authority to amend or repeal this Constitution and any authorities required by the organization’s legal structure.
5.1.2 Amendments to Constitution
The Ratifiers can amend or repeal this Constitution, but cannot violate the rules of the Constitution as long as they haven’t officially amended or repealed it.
5.1.3 Access to Constitution
All Partners in the organization are entitled to have access to the Constitution.
5.2 Anchor Circle
The Anchor Circle is the broadest Circle of the Organization, which ultimately holds everything the Organization does until differentiated into Roles or Sub-Circles. The Anchor Circle’s Purpose is the overall Organization’s Purpose, its Domain encompasses all the Domains controlled by the Organization, and it is accountable for expressing the Organization’s Purpose.
5.2.1 No Super-Circle
There is no Super-Circle to the Anchor Circle, and therefore no Rep Link.
5.2.2 Links to Anchor Circle
The Ratifiers either (a) appoint a Lead Link to the Anchor Circle, or (b) leave it without a Lead Link, and instead have several Cross-Links representing stakeholders (like a board).
5.2.3 Alternate to Lead Link Authority
If there is no Lead Link, then no one can impact the Circle’s Domains nor exercise any Lead Link authority except by making a Proposal to do so, and that Proposal must be processed with Integrative Decision-Making. If there is a Lead Link, then the Anchor Circle behaves just like any other and this doesn’t apply.
5.2.4 Defining Purpose
The Anchor Circle is accountable for defining the overall organization’s Purpose, and evolving it over time.
5.2.5 Partner Relationships
Unless explicitly delegated, the Anchor Circle holds a Domain over all matters around the relationships of the Partners with the Organization.
5.2.6 Updating the Anchor Circle
The Anchor Circle has the authority to update its own Purpose or clarify its own Domain and Accountabilities, as well as to specify or modify the links to the Anchor Circle.
5.3 Transition
While shifting from the old way the organization operated to the rules of this Constitution, the following transitional rules apply:
5.3.1 Initial Structure
When the Constitution is initially adopted, or before a Circle holds its first governance meeting, a Circle’s Lead Link or the Anchor Circle can define initial Governance for the Circle to start from.
5.3.2 Transitional Authority
Until a Circle runs its first Governance Meeting, it can run as it used to before the organization adopted the Constitution, with whatever authority structure existed at that time.
