Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Problematic Controlling Personalities and Cohousing

[Kay Argyle (argyle]

> Then we have 
> one or two members who try to dominate the entire group....going off on
> their own tangents without the group's consent and this too is creating
> conflict.  
> Our consultants think that we need to put into place a mediation 
> process for people to deal with interpersonal conflicts that are
affecting 
> the entire group.  

I know of five cases in our community involving third-party intervention.  
Two of them utilized special ad hoc conflict resolution committees, created
upon request; a couple of matters the process committee dealt with, or just
one person sat down with both parties.  I haven't been impressed by the
outcomes, which in practice (whatever the negotiated outcome) have mostly
involved somebody withdrawing (not attending meetings, dropping off
committees) or actually moving out.  

There's this notion that the problem should be kept confidential, just
between the involved parties, which as far as I can see actually makes
things worse.  The community is puzzled and uneasy, and usually one party
or the other tries to drag the community into things anyway. I as a
bystander have felt jerked around -- If you're not going to tell me what's
going on, kindly leave me out of it entirely.

Discussion hijackings are controlled by a couple of factors -- a. we have
ground rules about staying on topic and allowing everyone to be heard, and
b. all members, not just the facilitator, share responsibility for process
awareness, and can (and do) point out if a violation has occurred. 
("Process" meaning how meetings are run, proposals submitted, etc.)  

The facilitator assures the person they have been heard and asks if we can
hear from other people now, or asks if their concern can be discussed
later, at the next meeting, or off-line outside the meeting.  If they say
no (or if another member speaks up in the new topic's favor), the
facilitator checks with the group.  If the group agrees (particularly
anybody whose time on the agenda is getting bumped), the subject gets
changed.  If not, the facilitator has the group's assistance in getting the
discussion back on topic, and most people shut up when they have twenty
people glaring at them.  

Having a strong, savvy facilitator helps.  With practice, even our ramblers
and our "jackrabbit" (as somebody once referred to her discussion style,
from her habit of hopping from subject to subject or haring off on
wild-eyed tangents) have gotten more disciplined.

Sometimes somebody just plain has to be told, as tactfully as possible,
that, while we do want to hear what they have to say, the way they say it
is a problem.

Kay Argyle
Wasatch Commons