The Proposal would necessarily cause the impact, or, if it might cause the impact, the Circle wouldn’t have an adequate opportunity to adapt before significant harm could result (§5.3.2).
Let me be frank. Asking objectors, “Do you know this impact will occur, or are you anticipating?” has probably done more harm than good. It’s the exact question on the governance meeting card, but I hate it. And I’m the one who put it on the card. So, consider this my apology.
Now, the validity criteria are essential. There is a big paradigm shift and we need to identify objections that are based purely on speculation. But when tested incorrectly (as it often is) it gives the impression that Holacracy allows anyone to change anything with no way to stop it.
With the mistaken assumption that objections don’t work, smart people do whatever they can to prevent bad proposals from wreaking havoc on the organization. Usually, that means going around the governance process, or de-valuing the governance records altogether. Who could blame them?
So, let’s put an end to this disease.
Ignore “Will” and “Would”
First, remember valid objections are always based on proposals — meaning, by definition, we haven’t tried it yet. So, if interpreted that way, every objection is anticipatory (i.e. invalid). But that’s NOT what the criterion is about.
I suspect the misunderstanding stems from one problem-word: Will. As in, “This proposal will…” blah, blah, blah. When facilitators hear the word, “will,” they immediately (and unconsciously) assume the objector is anticipating. But that word doesn’t actually tell you anything. Here are some examples, all of which are likely valid:
- Objection, this domain will prevent me from offering discounts.
- Objection, this new role will create confusion on which role does what.
- Objection, this accountability would put an expectation on my role that a policy prevents.
So, “will” doesn’t tell you very much because we’re only talking about a proposed change. We haven’t changed it yet. Instead…
Listen for “Could,” “Maybe,” or “Might”
Those words are far better trigger words for anticipation.
- This accountability could create…
- I think maybe this accountability duplicates…
- I think this policy might prevent…
So, there is a meaningful difference between, “This policy will create…” and “This policy could create…” — that difference is subtle. Which is why we have an objection test question.
Remember, there is nothing wrong with anticipating problems. Sometimes you need to and it doesn’t necessarily mean the objection is invalid since there is a follow-up question (i.e. “Could significant harm happen before we can adapt, or is it safe enough to try?”)
Did They Say They Were Anticipating?
Objections are arguments, meaning we can only evaluate what the objector tells us (i.e. their “argument” or “reason”). This is a critical distinction, but one that even well-meaning facilitators seem to instantly forget when it comes to this test question.
Here’s how it usually goes. Someone raises an objection, and the facilitator starts the process of testing it. At some point in the dialogue, the facilitator silently, and probably unconsciously, ask themselves, “Are they anticipating?” And from that point on, the facilitator’s testing is doomed. Why? Because it’s the wrong question.
The question a facilitator should be asking themselves is, “Did THEY SAY they are anticipating?” Because again, the facilitator can only evaluate what is explicitly expressed — not what is implied or inferred. This is why it’s so important to listen for the keywords, “Could,” “Maybe,” and, “Might.” This is also why I encourage facilitators, especially at the beginning, to write down objections before testing. Just prompt the objector, “Can you finish the sentence, ‘My objection is…’ and Secretary please capture what they say in the scratchpad.” It’s not the facilitator’s job to figure out what the objector means. Only to test what the objector says.
It Will Create Confusion
What typically happens, someone raises an objection like, “This proposal creates confusion,” and the facilitator challenges the objector, “Well, do you KNOW it’s confusing, like in practice, or are you anticipating?”
But it’s a completely unfair question. And it’s based on the facilitator’s own misunderstanding of what the criterion is really about because, “It creates confusion,” automatically passes this criterion. Of course, it may be invalid for other reasons, but it passes this.
A more appropriate question would be, “Do you know NOW that it’s confusing, or are you anticipating it WILL BE confusing?” When you think of it that way, by using the actual content of the stated objection, it makes it more clear.
Because they aren’t saying, “I understand it now, but I think I might not understand it in the future.” That would be anticipatory. They are saying, “It’s confusing NOW.” I can see it with my own eyes. On the screen. Right now. Nothing anticipatory about it.
You’re Not Anticipating — You’re Just Wrong
However, as I said, an objection like, “it’s confusing,” could be invalid for many other reasons. And my point is that it should be invalidated based on those reasons.
For example, do any of the objector’s roles need to understand it? Maybe not. If so, it would be an invalid objection based on the criterion that requires it be from one of your roles.
What if the objector wrongly assumes the proposal is creating confusion, when in fact, the confusion is already there. So, if anything, the proposal is making the whole situation a little more clear. Well, then objection would be invalid because of the criterion that requires the objection to be a new tension.
Or maybe the proposal would add a confusing accountability to the objector’s role, and they’re worried they won’t know exactly what others are expected of them. But that fear is based on a misunderstanding of how governance works. Any role-filler can interpret accountabilities however they wish. But again, that has nothing to do with the objector anticipating.
So, please, please, please don’t jump to conclusions about an objection being anticipatory. And setting aside the specifics of what counts or doesn’t count as predictive, the best way to get oriented to the principle is to remember what governance actually is.
What is Governance, Really!?
Governance is just a blueprint. A map of your company’s current authorities, restrictions, and expectations. And since all valid objections are based on proposed changes to the circle’s governance, we have to ask, “What impact does a change to governance actually have?” Because that’s what the objector is objecting to.
In other words, “How can re-drawing a map be harmful?” Well, when you draw a new road, you aren’t physically pouring concrete. And when you create a new role, you aren’t creating a new person (you can find more metaphors for understanding governance here).
So, any objection like “I don’t have time to do that,” or, “It’s wasteful to have someone focused on that,” are likely invalid, not because they’re anticipatory, but because governance doesn’t allocate resources.
Therefore, when an objector is talking very specifically about how this accountability duplicates another accountability, they’re pointing to a clear problem with the map. Because you make a map worse if you make it inaccurate or confusing.
So, if an objector talks at the meta-level — how the harm is caused on the map-level, then they’re likely not anticipatory. Although, again…and I can’t emphasize this enough, it may be invalid for another reason. So, I’m not saying “Don’t test objections,” I’m saying be careful when asking if an objection is anticipatory.
It’s Not About the Objector’s Level of Confidence
One of the biggest confusions about this criterion is that it’s about the objector’s level of confidence or certainty.* It’s not. It’s actually about where their data comes from. Is the objection based on data presently accessible right now? (i.e. is necessarily created by the proposal), or is their stated objection based on data that can only be found in the future?
*Some of the confusion resulted from an iteration of the test question which said, “Is the issue based on presently known data, or…are you anticipating the issue is likely to occur?” The word, “likely” probably created the misunderstanding.
For example, let’s say you want to go to the beach, but your friend doesn’t want to (i.e. they object to your proposal). Now, compare the following two arguments that they could present:
- I don’t have enough time to go because I have to pick my kids up from school in an hour.
- The beach will probably be too crowded.
The, “I don’t have enough time to go…,” is based on currently available information. They already know the constraints of their schedule. They aren’t saying, “I might not have enough time, etc.” Compare that to, “The beach will probably be too crowded.” Does the data in that argument exist in the present or in the future? The future (the word, “probably,” is a hint).
Again, the distinction is subtle. Is their objection ultimately based upon available data, or is it an inference or speculation? And yes, that’s tricky. And you probably can’t know. So, don’t try. Avoid the philosophical rabbit hole altogether and don’t even entertain the question, “Is the objection anticipatory?” Instead ask, “Are YOU SAYING your objection is anticipatory?”
Conclusion
Too often, “Do you know the impact will occur, or are you anticipating the impact is likely to occur?” filters out perfectly valid objections from getting integrated. And the impact of that is catastrophic.
The organization gets harmed. One problem was solved only to create another one. We might as well have skipped the meeting.
The objector, who doesn’t really understand the criterion, feels frustrated because they know the proposal would necessarily create the confusion, but they can’t figure out how to argue or explain that.
And because the group has no safety net, the proposer of course, feels responsible for all of this. So, yeah…
I’m sorry.
Read “Introducing the Holacracy Practitioner Guide” to find more articles.
