RE: revisiting decisions | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (Exchange) (RobsanExchange.MICROSOFT.com) | |
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 12:24:54 -0500 |
I missed the original context of this, but since Sharingwood is doing exactly this, let me add my $.02. In my perspective, one of the largish mistakes Sharingwood continues to repeat is that new comers get very little orientation to our group process and history. There is no concerted effort at teaching folks how to be part of our group and thus, they enter with often no experience being part of a group, and have problems right away figuring out that the group is the focus, not their individual wants and whims. Many newcomers don't know anything about what consensus is, how we use it, or why. Over the course of several meetings the more adept pick this up, but it never explained to them. Some new folks have remarked, why don't we just vote and be done with it, and then get a bunch of flak from the other members, and still don't know what consensus is or why we use it. So I reccomend a thorough training course for new members about your decision process, and as much group history as you can, especially going over each previous decision and explaining why the decision was made, what the side issues were and answering any questions. If I were in charge, this would be a prerequisite before a new person could enter into the decision making. When you join a community, you are expected to honor the previous agreements, even though you did not help make them. This is much harder to do than for those agreements that you participated in making, so recognize a thorough orientation to the previous agreements is needed. One of the values of new folks is that they bring a new perspective to an old situation. Granted, they may have to have the same discussions about the rental policy the rest of held 3 years ago, before they understand what the issues are. As long as this can be done in a small group and not on everyones time, this should be fine. Provide learning opportunities like this when you can, its a great way to get a good understanding and new perspectives. In most consensus groups I am aware of, which aint too many but a fair sample, the old agreement stands until a new consensus is reached. One of the things to watch for in this situation is "The naysayer". The naysayer is the experienced person who says: " We tried that once and it didn't work". What this can really mean is: " I don't want to change the status quo". This often gets applied inappropriately where one situation gets carried over into all others that are like it. For example, "we tried working with an architect once, but they were clueless" with the conotation that all architects are clueless, therefore using them is a bad idea. The naysayer is usually not very good at looking at a variety of options and so helping them by brainstorming up lots of alternatives and options helps them overcome their inability to see multiple solutions and applications. They typically aren't too happy about all these choices, but it does open them to see there is more than one option. One perspective I would offer is that every decision you make as a group will be changed. Someday. Nothing is permanent about your agreements. Very few things you do now will still be done the same way 100 years from now, so accept that things are going to change, embrace the attitude that flexability and change are OK, and then you can avoid being the stuffy person who whines: " But we have always done it this way". One other piece I would add, write up the goals your decisions and agreements are trying to accomplish, as a part of the agreement document. This helps you figure out three years from now, What in the world were we thinking when we decided THAT? Goals and intents should be somewhat consistent as part of your mission statement, the ends to those goals may flucuate a great deal. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood Where if everyone listened to ME, boy would we be in deep do do. So thankfully I'm just a piece of the whole. Original Message----- Sent: Saturday, May 18, 1996 8:49 AM Subject: Re: revisiting decisions Sometimes with a lot of new people, you need to "revisit" in small group discussion instead of changing the policy. New people don't always know or understand the reasons behind a policy.Many times they don't realize that we already tried other options. Sometimes they are right - we tried things early on, and we couldn't do it. But now we know each other better, and that idea might work just fine. Mela Silva Southside Park Sacramento CA Original Message----- Sent: Saturday, May 18, 1996 8:49 AM Subject: Re: revisiting decisions Sometimes with a lot of new people, you need to "revisit" in small group discussion instead of changing the policy. New people don't always know or understand the reasons behind a policy.Many times they don't realize that we already tried other options. Sometimes they are right - we tried things early on, and we couldn't do it. But now we know each other better, and that idea might work just fine. Mela Silva Southside Park Sacramento CA
-
revisiting decisions Marci Malinowycz, May 17 1996
- Re: revisiting decisions MelaSilva, May 18 1996
- RE: revisiting decisions Rob Sandelin (Exchange), May 20 1996
- Revisiting Decisions Joani Blank, May 21 1996
-
Revisiting Decisions Gary Kent, December 4 2001
-
Re: Revisiting Decisions Diane Simpson, December 6 2001
- Re: Revisiting Decisions Sharon Villines, December 7 2001
-
Re: Revisiting Decisions Diane Simpson, December 6 2001
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.