Make the default spending authorization mechanism more explicit

[oliviercp]

I think novice practitioners would benefit from the constitution being clearer on what is the default constitutional process for get authorization to spend. It's especially true for this aspect of the constitution because

• It's a significant process change from what people are used to in conventional organizations.
• Novice practitioners are more likely to look up this rule early in their practice, because they'll need to spend money.
• Casual readers of the constitution are also likely to look for this rule to evaluate Holacracy because it's a key locus of authority in organizations.

Currently article 4.1.3 Get Authorization Before Spending Money says that

This authorization must come from a Role that already has control of those resources for spending purposes

What is the “Role” in question that has control of spending by default, assuming no related policy in governance and a fresh Holacracy adoption? As per our discussion elsewhere, the following interpretation makes sense:

1. If there is no policy about spending, then by default the Anchor circle alone retains the authority to spend (and to authorize other roles to spend)
2. Therefore the Role with control over money is all Roles in the Anchor circle
3. So the role wanting to spend money must get authorization from all Anchor circle Role Leads.

I think this article could be vastly simplified by simply clarifying this default path. Maybe just adding a sentence to the article. If only to highlight that in many cases, it would be a good idea to propose some governance to change it.

[bernardmariechiquet]

Thanks @ocompagne for such reflexion.
On this subject, as on others such as the definition of the expectations on a circle lead, the 5.0 constitution makes its adoption more complex and at the same time enriches it because it forces us to ask the question upstream during the encoding phase (initial structure) and before the launch of the circles:

• what are the expectations of a circle leader who creates plural value?
• what are our mechanisms and processes re the authorization of expenses that we have in place
  For the few organizations I am coaching in Holacracy 5.0, it doesn't change much, because they are not mature enough to adopt the mechanism proposed by article 4.1.3 Get Authorization Before Spending Money
  The same is true for other companies that I accompany into their transition from version 4.1 to 5.0. We just add a new policy connected to art. 4.1.3 making the link to governance already in place.
  The policy you mention is already there at the end of the article "A Policy may change this process in any way, or directly authorize a Role to control spending of the Circle's resources." and makes it clearer for them to encode in Holacracy governance their spending authorization mechanisms.
  So from a pedagogical point of view, I find version 5.0 much more helpful than version 4.1, where I observed that many companies completely missed these processes, even when they are helped by certified Holacracy coaches.
  The only ones who might be bothered are the do it yourselfers, but this is not the case from my point of view because the blind spot they might have had in version 4.1 disappears with this article 4.3.1. So they can ask for help on forums, which is much better than in version 4.1. And at least, they have the fall back in Preamble:
  Any existing policies and systems the Organization had in effect before adopting this Constitution continue in full force after adoption, however they may not be expanded upon or modified except by the authorities and processes defined herein. These legacy policies and systems further lose all weight and authority as soon as this Constitution's processes create something that replaces or contradicts them.

[oliviercp]

Reviving this thread, as I still find it very relevant. I think @bernardmariechiquet made some great points regarding Holacracy adoption and pedagogy 🙏

But the constitution still needs to be as useful as possible for practitioners who don't have a coach guiding them. Whether that do-it-yourselfers, or members of an organization who need to refer to that rule at a given time where no coach is around, and no governance was created to amend this process.

It takes a lot of focused deductive logic to understand the practical reality that this article is pointing to. This default process is not that complex. The difficulty of understanding it is mostly created by the way it is presented here IMO.