Add mechanism for setting partner agreements

[brianjrobertson]

As a partner or a role-filler, I'd like an effective and simple mechanism to define agreements I'd like from partners, including a way to make some agreements required for partnership, so that I can more easily process tensions that are beyond the scope of organizational governance to resolve, and which require partner-to-partner or partner-to-organization agreements to effectively handle.

[cassus]

👍

[LouisChiquet]

Do you have some concrete examples to help (of agreements you'd like for instance)?

[brianjrobertson]

Some partner-level agreements we have in HolacracyOne:

• I will prioritize attending the organization's official partner retreats in-person, even over competing personal preferences or events (except emergencies). This agreement does not apply to personal events that were on my calendar and committed to before I was invited to an overlapping partner retreat, however in those cases I agree to do my best to find a balance that maximizes the greatest overall good for everyone involved.
• I will travel as-needed for my roles, up to _____.
• I will use a personal credit or debit card to cover reimbursable expenses required to serve as a productive Partner of the organization or to support specific Roles I fill, and I will manage my available cash or credit to provide a sufficient buffer for these expenses.
• I agree to prioritize my attention however is needed to get a GTD-style Weekly Review done every week in most weeks, and to miss no more than one week in a row in any case short of major personal or cripple-the-company emergencies.
• When planning to take time off from work and I can reasonably expect that others may be impacted by my absence, then I agree to notify all relevant partners in advance.
• I will pre-process my own "charge" about a partnership issue before engaging other partners about it.
• I will use the tribal mediator to facilitate a difficult feedback conversation upon request of another partner.
• I will set a context for "pushing"/offering feedback, and if not a good time, not share the feedback then.

[brianjrobertson]

Hi Folks - I'd really love some more eyes on this change: Does it make sense? Could it be simpler? Anything I'm missing? Any concerns or concerning scenarios you can think of?

[margauxchiquet]

For me, what is missing is how you can make a working agreement. Is it a policy? Is it a note published? Do it have the same weight as governance and if you break it it becomes a broken rule? I am not clear about this weight and place of this in the whole.

[chourie2]

Hi,

I really like the proposal, as someone one who really want to challenge myself on my behavior, theses Working Agreements offers me a way to clarify some goals for me and for others who might be able to rely on thanks to them! Really nice and it really make sense to me 👍

Like @margauxchiquet I'm curious about the definition of theses Working Agreements. It's doesn't seems to be governance because it look like something anyone can add on himself as a Partner and not as a Role / Circle. Should the constitution clearly explain that it's not Governance if it's the right way of seeing it? Same question in the other case. And if so, I'm probably missing a point here!

I'm also not sure about the consequence of breaking such agreement. But if I'm right by seeing it as "Not Governance", I think that the only result might be that it may raise Tension to others Partners who relies on the disrespected agreements ? If so, I don't see any concern on that matter.

I also think that, to be usefull it needs to be published, just like governance, and even if it's not governance. Every Partner should be able to know the working agreements of others Partners, right? And if so, maybe it also need to be said in the constitution ?

@margauxchiquet, what do you think about a new section "Working Agreements" on the Partner page (your profil in glassfrog for example), on which you can only see Roles filled by the Partners and eventually tags I think currently? This new section would work almost exactly the same way the Note section work for a Role / Circle (I just don't think there is a need for a title for each Working Agreements).

[chourie2]

Hey, it’s me again!

Shower thoughts :
Why call it « Working » Agreements if it include Partners to Partners agreements? IMO, these category of agreements could be (or systematically is?) in the human relation space, outside of the actual work, but still relevant for the organization.

Maybe something like Personnal, Individual or Partner Agreements might more reflect that you make the agreement as a Person / an Individual / a Partner, and whitout looking to determine the recipient which could be your Organization, Roles, other Partners or even yourself (let’s be crazy here!), if it make sense for you!

[klaas1979]

I got a question:

Working Agreements are for shaping Partner behaviors that underpin Role-based work, and may not define expectations only relevant when a Partner is already energizing a specific Role, nor expectations around how a Partner will prioritize across different Roles.

What is the interpretation of the 'may not define' part? Example:
Is it possible to define working hours for call center roles with a working agreement or not? The office hours are only relevant to a single role of the person.

[brianjrobertson]

Yes, that's possible - that's about defining an expectation of when someone will energize the role, not defining an expectation relevant when they're already energizing the role.

[brianjrobertson]

I was just reviewing all the feedback above - thanks folks! I'm reopening this issue just to explore better names than "Working Agreement", per @chourie2's point. Any ideas? I'm not a fan of Personal or Individual; "Partner Agreement" or "Partnership Agreement" could work, although I'm not sure it's better or less confusing. Any thoughts about that one, or any alternate ideas?