Facilitator Basics: Understanding Objections

Author’s Note: If you’re interested in learning how to improve your facilitation in Holacracy practice, check out my course Facilitator Fundamentals.

I already wrote a practitioner’s introduction to understanding objections here. But that overview was intentionally short.

This post provides another type of overview specifically for a circle’s elected Facilitator. It’s a sequence of logical points with each built upon the previous to better understand what objections are and how to test them.

1. The Facilitator is judging whether the objector’s argument is reasoned, not whether it’s reasonable. They aren’t judging the veracity of the argument. The biggest confusion is that facilitators think they need to interpret the merits of the argument when in fact they are just evaluating how the argument is constructed. The correct way to think about testing objections is like this. Imagine if I said, “Give me a verb that describes something you did yesterday.” If you said, “Cat,” I could invalidate your answer because “That is a noun not a verb.” You are literally evaluating the type of construct, not the content. What most facilitators think testing is, is more like this: “Give me a verb that describes something you did yesterday.” And you said, “time-traveling,” and the facilitator says, “Oh, that’s not a valid answer because you didn’t actually do that.” They are incorrectly evaluating the content. So, when an objection needs to state harm, that means literally…technically…pedantically….the words describe harm.
2. Objections are explicit arguments, which means the facilitator can only evaluate what the objector says. So, even if you think there is a valid objection to process, but the objector is unable to articulate how their tension meets all of the criteria that deem is necessary to integrate, then you just go with what they say (as long as it’s a reasoned argument) and tell them that based on what they’ve told you it’s invalid. Moreover, when testing the facilitator may ask as many follow-up questions are necessary to understand how the argument is logical (but they needn’t agree with the logic).
3. Objectors can have as many objections as they need, so there is no pressure on them to make one argument and stick with it — they may offer several objections at one time, or give one objection, but then unconsciously start talking about another one. This is why we say the facilitator is helping the objector, because it’s their job to help them keep those arguments discrete so that they can be tested, without implying that they need to build a whole case in order to be taken seriously. Other statements may be made, like “And this is bad idea because this…” yada yada yada…that’s all fine as long as the objector isn’t stating that this is the objection. And the point is to keep things focused only on getting the arguments…weeding through everything else they may be saying, because people rarely just state things clearly up front.
4. Capture the objection as you would capture a starting proposal. It does a lot of things like give you time and help the objector structure their argument. You can use the prompt, “Can you finish the sentence… ‘My objection is…’ and Secretary, please capture it in the scratchpad.” This allows the facilitator to clearly see what the objector’s argument is, which also makes it easier to solicit and track multiple objections (see previous point). Example, “Yeah, my objection is…we have no time for this because Marketing is already doing something like that, so if anything, we should probably refactor Marketing’s accountability…” That is three different objections: 1) “We have no time for this…” 2) “Marketing is already doing something like that…” and 3) “We should refactor Marketing’s accountability…” Chart all three separately. Then test each one and allow them as many additions and/or modifications as they need. Just keep charting and testing.
5. Since an objection is a tension, the objector alone actually determines whether it’s valid or not, given all of the criteria specified in the constitution. The facilitator is just helping them get perspective on their tension because it’s usually difficult to see things from all the necessary perspectives by yourself (like trying to fix your hair without a mirror). This is why the default position is always to take the objection as valid and try to integrate it.
6. Many objections result from a misunderstanding about what governance is. Since all valid objections are based on proposals, and proposals only change governance, then misunderstanding what a governance change means results in people raising invalid objections. The best way to think about it is governance is a map. And how can a map be harmful? Well, if it’s confusing, inaccurate, or doesn’t help us get to where we need to go. For other helpful metaphors for governance see this.
7. The criteria rule — not the test questions. The test questions are just ways we’ve developed to distinguish valid from invalid objections, meaning you can actually determine this any way you want. For example, it’s a myth that you’d be putting words in their mouth if you rephrased their objection into something you could better identify as valid or invalid. It’s a myth because if you’re saying something truly different than they are saying, they will tell you. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with inquiring into the objection in different ways.
8. Given the 5 validity criteria, theoretically any objection has an ideal construction, meaning the argument could be stated in such a way as to clearly describe how it satisfies all criteria. For example, “By creating this new role, with a purpose for ‘Marketing events’ it creates confusion between it and my Promoter role’s purpose of ‘Promoting events.’” But no objector will ever say it this way up front. But it’s helpful to imagine an ideal construction in your head, and use what the objector says to fill-in-the-blanks; “Changing X will cause harm Y, which limits my role Z…” The testing then is just trying to fill in those missing pieces. Once they are all filled in, you have a valid objection. In general, there is a logical sequence for identifying whether an objection satisfies the validity criteria. Facilitators should generally gather data to satisfy criteria #1 first (harm), then criteria #4 (role), then criteria #2 (proposal), and lastly criteria #3 (predictive). The reasoning is this:
   • “Harm,” is always the first criteria that needs to be satisfied, because all of the other criteria and their corresponding questions, are about the harm itself. So, if the objector has not described that harm, then you always need to go back and get that captured first. This is also why there are far more invalid sub-types for this criteria.
   • In general, try to satisfy the criteria, “from one of the objector’s roles” immediately after criteria #1. Even though it is listed in the constitution as #4, it is an especially effective and elegant filter to use because it can help you avoid more complex/squishy issues. Moreover, it’s the least likely to be offered up front by the objector as clarifying the subject/perspective/role that feels the tension is secondary in our experience to identifying/sensing the presenting issue itself. Therefore, facilitators will likely need to ask this question even with experienced practitioners.
   • Criteria #2 and #4 both require understanding what governance really is (i.e. a map of expectations, restrictions, and authorities) but criteria #4 is easier to understand because it is about grounding the objector in the current governance (rather than proposed governance), which is why it should be prioritized higher.
   • Criteria #3, the objection isn’t anticipatory, or is necessarily so, is by far the most misunderstood for both facilitators and objectors. Often mistakenly simplified to “Is it safe enough to try?” this criteria “invalidates” far too many valid objections, which means we are just wasting our time (i.e. we are running in circles by solving one issue only to create another). Therefore, unless you are 100% certain you understand what this criteria is all about, dig into it last.
9. “Creates confusion,” as an objection deserves a special attention because a good facilitator will notice that it already satisfies criteria #3 (it isn’t predictive). Often facilitators will mistakenly take a stand on criteria #3, by saying something like, “Do you KNOW it’s confusing…like in practice? Or you anticipating it MIGHT be confusing?” This is an unfair question based on the facilitator’s own misunderstanding of what the criteria is really about. Therefore, the primary focus should be figuring out whether the objector’s confusion is necessary to resolve by inquiring…1) Is it really harmful confusion, or is the objector feeling the tension because they are misunderstanding that they can use whatever interpretation they wish?), and/or inquiring, 2) does the objector have any roles (criteria #4) that require the confusion to be resolved (e.g. their roles don’t need to request any work based on that accountability)?
10. Treat each objection criteria…1…2…3…and 4…as independent tests. Meaning, each one is solely focused on identifying whether an objection meets its particular threshold, and no other. This is important because an objection like, “This could create confusion for someone else…” actually meets criteria #1 (i.e. it states harm, “confusion”). Of course it might not pass #3 (anticipatory + not reversible), or #4 (from your role), but the objection should be invalidated according to those criteria, not criteria #1. Facilitators fail to do this when they hear the objection, but mix-up what criteria they are testing for in their head, and start to argue with the objector something like, “Well, if it impacts another role, then it isn’t HARMFUL to your role,” or, “Well, if you’re saying that it ‘could’ be an issue, then you aren’t really stating HARM…” Neither of those is correct. The objector absolutely stated harm, their argument would just likely fail other criteria.
11. Each of the criteria has something deeper about Holacracy practice to contribute. So, if someone is having a hard time understanding why a particular criteria exists, then sometimes it helps to provide a metaphor. Let’s look briefly at each one and the principle or aspect it points to:
    • Criteria #1 (Harm): You don’t need people to agree (consensus) on solutions, you (as a group) want to know if a particular solution would cause someone else harm. Metaphor: I don’t need my friends to agree on what I order for dinner, but I do want to know if the smell of tuna would be off-putting, because that is what I was thinking of ordering.
    • Criteria #2 (Created by the proposal): You have permission to do whatever you think reasonable and within the rules, unless explicitly forbidden. Implicit agreements carry no weight. Taking turns. You don’t need to have something written down to give you permission. Metaphor: Laws tell me what I can’t do while driving my car — it would be silly for them to try and describe everything I can do (e.g. what music can be playing, how often I may switch lanes, etc.)
    • Criteria #3 (Isn’t predictive, or is necessarily so): Based on a tension felt now, not something you predict might happen — and if predictive, we can’t easily change course should something go wrong. Sense & respond rather than predict & control. Governance is only map. Metaphor: My neighbor bought a guitar and I’m afraid it’s going to be too loud [invalid because it’s predictive and you could adapt]; versus, my neighbor bought a grizzly bear and I’m afraid it will get loose [valid even though its predictive, you couldn’t adapt].
    • Criteria #4 (from one of the objector’s roles): You can’t represent other roles without permission. The rules want each individual to be taking ownership of his or her own roles, so that each objection is based on a real tension. Metaphor: It’s like coming home to find my neighbor cleaning my kitchen. It’s nice I guess, but kinda weird if I haven’t invited him over.