Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Pet Policy

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Jun 28, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Rod Lambert wrote:

> Do you mean that one objection prevents someone from doing something. 
> I have noticed that general tendency here sometimes and it seems to 
> constipate the process of getting things done. Of course a concern for 
> how a neighbor might feel is important. None the less a single 
> objection should not always mean stop. I have been wondering about how 
> to find the right balance for a while without any brilliant rule of 
> thumb idea coming up.

Basically, yes. When you try to write long detailed policies you also 
trigger the bureaucratic mentality. People begin nitpicking instead of 
looking at the over all intent of the policy. I saw this happening when 
we moved in and later understood it because of all the studies I did to 
write the book on sociocracy. Sometimes detailed policies are necessary 
-- we bemoaned our inability to write one. Finally we agreed that there 
would be no pets in the commonhouse because several people, as well as 
potential guests, were allergic to them and that pets shouldn't bother 
anyone. We fully intended to write a "real" policy after we moved in. 
We never did because the issue disappeared. Just disappeared.

Occasionally someone trots a dog through the commonhouse and there have 
been (minor) disputes when a dog snapped at a child. The dog lost. No 
one agreed with the dog owner who maintained that their dog had been 
provoked therefore there was no problem. Children cannot be expected to 
understand dogs that do not want to be petted. Either the dog is kept 
under control or it leaves. This never came to a meeting; it was just 
discussion amongst neighbors.

Detailed policies and procedures are sometimes necessary but they are 
often the hallmark of "de-skilling" jobs and thus people. People are 
expected to behave like robots, well-trained robots, and do only what 
the policies and procedures say. Think Mcdonalds that has a script for 
every action and employees are supposed to follow it to the letter. The 
early Ford assembly lines of Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times and Lucy's 
chocolate factory are good examples. Just do it this way and don't 
think. They were focusing on the speed but the idea was that you could 
spell things out in minute detail and there would be no mistakes.

The problem was that Ford couldn't keep workers -- huge turnover -- and 
he ended up paying people so much to work under those conditions that 
he lost money producing cars. It wasn't the only reason but a major 
one. All that detail drove people nuts.

Other people will also focus on the detail and try to beat you at the 
detail game. They will ask for more and more detail rather than "using 
their heads."

Or the one that one drives me nuts: "the policy doesn't say I can't, 
therefor I can." The policy doesn't say I can't put Pirahna in the 
kitchen sink.

I don't mean to be critical of the Trillium Hollow Pet Policy. It 
appears to be well thought out and something must have triggered all 
the special provisions. It certainly represents a lot of work. I do 
fear that it will come back to bite them -- like the Pirahnas in the 
kitchen sink.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
http://www.sociocracy.info