|Re: Consensus-Cooperative vs. Competetive||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Rob Sandelin (robsanmicrosoft.com)|
|Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 10:38 CST|
Just want to touch on the whole issue of competetive vs cooperative process in consensus. In a cooperative process every idea and input from every individual is openly considered, fairly evaluated against other ideas in a non-threatening way. The pros and cons of each idea are listed honestly, and all ideas are fairly treated. Individuals bring ideas and give them away to the group with no attachment or ownership needed because every idea is treated with the same fairness and rigor. A cooperative process builds trust and gives clear honest choices. The decision is owned equally by everyone. In a competetive process individuals come with agendas which they "lobby" for. Ideas are owned, fiercely defended and protected. The pros are magnified by the "owners" the cons are not discussed, or dismissed. Other ideas which may "compete" are ignored, dismissed or outright attacked. The attack on "competing" ideas often eliminates further exploration of choices. Because ideas are owned and defended, arguing replaces discussion, few real choices are offered. The decision is owned by one or a small group of people. A competitive process destroys trust, and results in decisions based on limited choices. Is it possible to use a competitive process and still call the decision consensus? Rob Sandelin Sharingwood
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.