|Re: RE- the politics of co-h||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Rob Sandelin (robsanmicrosoft.com)|
|Date: Tue, 15 Mar 94 15:36 CST|
Laura Bagnal asked: >I'd be interested in different decision-making tools employed by >different groups, if people would care to share their >experiences. There is whole chapter in the cohousing guide on decision structures. Just to cover the highlights: The power of having a group decision is that you have assess to many perspectives and several lifetimes worth of experiences, training, etc. Create a process to tap this resource and use it to its full potential. Voting: Use a sizeable majority 2/3 or greater and watch for and avoid a persistent minority. Small groups: Give small groups the autonomy to make decisions. An individual: Sometimes when dealing with outside people, such as agency people, giving one person the authority to make decisions can work out. An authority makes decisions. Most groups agree that they got too involved and should have let the architect make more of the decisions. Consensus. Works well for issues which effect the whole group, often misused. People often block for personal reasons, rather than for the good of the whole group. In deciding something which is a matter of preference, where there really is no right answer, and one persons opinion is as good as anothers, consensus usually doesn't work well. Sometimes problems such as the name of the group don't really need to be resolved and you can spend a whole lot of large group time working on it, which might not be the best use of the group. At Sharingwood how we handle such things is to do a large group brainstorm of all the ideas, assign a task force to sort and categorize the information and to make a reccomendation. Usually the reccomendation offers 2-3 alternative solutions with one being the reccomended over the others. If none of the solutions work for the group, then the task force recovenes to come up with other ideas, incorporating the input of the meeting. If the issue is time critical, and meets certain other criteria that we have established, then we hold a vote, with 3/4 majority to pass. One way to deal with deadlocked issues is to back up a step. Often people can't agree right away to the details but can agree on concepts. For the group name scenario you might be able to get some conceptual agreements such as the name should reflect our nature preservation values, sharing, or other such concepts. Having agreement on concepts can make it easier to filter out specifics which don't fit the concepts and also lead to the direction of agreement. Rob Sandelin Puget Sound Cohousing Network "Building a better society, one neighborhood at a time"
Re: RE- the politics of co-h Laura Bagnall, March 15 1994
- Re: RE- the politics of co-h Nancy Wight, March 15 1994
- Re: RE- the politics of co-h Rob Sandelin, March 15 1994
- Re: RE- the politics of co-h Stephen Lewin-Berlin, March 16 1994
- Re: RE- the politics of co-h BARANSKI, March 16 1994
- Re: RE- the politics of co-h IAN_HIG, March 16 1994
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.