|Re: Large group vs. small group meetings||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Rob Sandelin (robsanmicrosoft.com)|
|Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 17:26 CST|
Linda Mae-Richardson Wrote: >What about the small group (here at The Evergreen State College we call >them a DTF - Disappearing Task Force) going through the >survey/request-for-input period and then the copies of reports to key >people (supervisors of each department for example) and one copy is >posted on a public space like a bulletin board (or cyber-bulletin >board). Good idea. We use this format for projects which are temporary in nature. Those interested gather, create a solution and implement it, after notifying everyone and asking deliberately for input and ideas. (I'm a TESC alumni and learned it there) >One further criteria from another perspective: Look more intensely at >the interaction within the two types of groups. Typically there are >"quiet" people that do no choose to dominate the time of a larger group, >and yet they have significant ideas to contribute, whereas a smaller >group can make it a point to hear from each and every one of their members. This alludes to my general point of frustration with large group process. The very nature and size of a large group can be very intimidating for some people and they do not speak their truth. Add a time constraint, the tension of major decision, negative comments or noise behaviors which inhibit people, and getting shy people to speak at all is really problematic. And my understanding of consensus and cooperative process is that everyone's voice is important to hear. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.