|Re: Pet Policy||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)|
|Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:34:05 -0700 (PDT)|
On Jun 29, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Rod Lambert wrote:
a good simple process for working with objections informally. Sometimes it seems that if the 'obectioner' could just be helped to get a larger perspective the objection would be dropped. Do you know what I mean?
Personally, I think having someone who is close to the person or to whom the person might listen is the best way of handling this. When the group insists on having all decisions made in full group meetings, it becomes very hard for some people to either listen or to change their minds. It's just not their scene, to mix metaphors.
I work on our facilities team and we have a team leader who is a people person and he goes and talks to people. He loves it and he's good at it. He isn't manipulative; he just has the ability to meet people halfway and say, "Look why don't we try this. How bad could it be?"
The insistence that the two specific people who have a conflict have to work out that conflict face to face is another lunacy. If the conflict is purely personal, they may need to, but it's like insisting that oil and water mix. If Joe wants the tree here and Mary wants it there, asking Joe and Mary to resolve their differences may be pointless and will certainly take more time than letting someone else just talk to them and work out tree placement.
Sharon ----- Sharon Villines Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC http://www.takomavillage.org
- Re: Pet Policy, (continued)
- Re: Pet Policy Tilstra, June 30 2006
- Pet policy Fred H Olson, April 24 2012
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.