Guardrails

I disagree with this part: Teal practices can be team-specific or available to the whole company, and can be in flux (actively being worked on/improved) or baked (not actively being worked on, subject to minor improvements).

Only because there are teal practices that are already team-specific, why should we GDM them at TLab? That makes it feel like a team can't have a practice without the approval of TLab. For example, Core Ops has a vacation practice. It's specific to us and our needs around payroll year-end. Should we need to propose that at TLab for GDMing? What if the practice affects the work and behaviour of just the people on the team... (we had people from across the organization advise us on that one).

When taken with this section:
TLab holds coaches and stewards accountable for the continuous improvement of Teal practices in flux.
Coaches and stewards of Teal practices in flux join TLab meetings.
Once Teal practices are baked, the coach(es) and steward(s) of that practice leave TLab, and the practice is out of scope for TLab.

It would mean that teal practices (including team specific ones) need to be taken to TLab.

I think only potential common practices should be taken to TLab. If a team has a specific 15Five, vacation, expense, or hiring, or compensation practice, do they need to bring it to TLab? I don't think so.

I agree with what you're saying, Emily. I just think I may have communicated something poorly.

In this proposal,
- Teal practices that are solely for one or two teams, and not for the whole company, are out of scope for TLab.
- Teal practices that are baked are also out of scope for TLab.

The reasons someone would bring a practice to TLab would be:
- To resource the development of the practice with a coach + steward
- To get the guidance of TLab in the initial planning of how to develop the practice

I also think that there are and will be practices that will be "out there" and available for use (like Fitzii's Comp Advice practice), but not listed as an official common practice. So, those would be shared, but not what we're labelling as "common."

Does that address your concern? Is there a spot you'd change the wording of to make that clear?

Totally agree with what you said. I see the blue "out of scope" now... I'm supportive!

This is so awesome... what I love about Teal is when someone expresses an inkling/fear/concern (like Edwin did at the end of the meeting last week), people come up with amazing and helpful insights to address it!

Yeah Tim, that IS awesome. You just release the fear and the group responds and dissipates it.

Matt, I think one more thing should be made clear in Guardrails, which is that only T Lab can create/approve a Common Practice and publish the Playbook. Not that I think we'll have rogue people trying to create a faction of alternative common practices, but it's worth saying since it's the main function of the group (and it's also listed as the example now in the updated Teaming Practice doc).

One other little idea. I wonder if it's worth mentioning that everyone in the group should feel responsible for giving the Stewards feedback on the progress of their practice, and in giving advice and GDM. Especially in our update meetings, or after the meetings. We should hold our Stewards up to high expectations of efficient & constant progress and good project management basics. This is especially the coaches job, but also everyone's.

Great work on the evolution into common practice. Some day we should make a fun video explaining how a little wee inkling evolves into a Teal Common Practice.

I can see adding in the list of other guardrails: "Members of TLab share responsibility for giving the stewards feedback and advice on the progress of their practice."

I don't think we need the part about GDM... it's expected that you fully engage in GDMs you're a part of, or you'll be getting feedback.

I think your point about only TLab creating/approving opens up a tricky one - how does a practice get in the voting pool for the GDM/ratification process?

How about:
"TLab curates and publishes the Playbook"
AND
"TLab curates the list of practices to be voted on in the annual ratification of common practices."
- we could specify that TLab has to have some sort of hand in shaping a common practice, but I can imagine emerging practices not needing the resourcing or guidance of TLab. If a practice does need some TLab help before becoming a common practice, TLab just keeps it off the list of potential common practise to be ratified.

@edwinjansen - I'm adding changes from others as we go, but I imagine you'll have some thoughts on this, so let's fully suss this out before I go adding something in. Can you make my response edits better?

I agree with all your points in response to mine Matt. For clarity, I didn't mean participate in the actual GDM process, but rather attend GDM's that are happening outside of T Lab meetings (when you have reaction value to add).

Matt and I talked about this a bunch so most of my thoughts are already represented.

My one fear is that in calling experimental practices tentative ones (or in viewing our work as creating/adding common practices) we are missing something that I think is important, which is discerning whether we need or are ready for more common practices.

Fitzii folks, I think, have more appetite for practice creation and experimentation than IMG folks have, at least at this stage of teal adoption. This tension may be solved by increasing IMG representation in this group over time.

To me, practices in that "Tentative" practice zone are not active practices that are being tested and improved. They're in their infancy.
"Experimental" speak more to the phase of Teal Practices in flux.
The reason I like tentative is that it says to me "this isn't a real thing yet, but it may become real."
If others prefer "Experimental" I could live with that.