Re: Unreasonable members & decision making
From: Joanie Connors (jvcphdgmail.com)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
I would like to backtrack a little and clarify the issues involved
here. While I have been part of group consensus decision making
discussions for 20+ years, I want to make sure we are on the same
page.

It seems overly judgmental to refer to some people who disagree as
"unreasonable". I think these contributors are coming from the same
experience that many of us have had, which is to have been part of a
well-meaning group that has bent over backwards to try to reconcile
with a contrary or controlling member or subgroup.

As mentioned in some of the present discussion, such people can have
extremely negative effects on group consensus or climate, and the 75%
vote backup rule has been a lifesaver.

I do want to caution though against making snap judgments about who
might fit that "unreasonable" category, and then deciding that they
don't belong, or deserve to be a member. That can move us in the
direction of fascism.

Diversity of opinion and background is essential for group health.
Groups that always agree fall victim to groupthink which produces more
errors in their judgments.

The cohousers I know on this list have gone the extra mile in
listening to those who disagree. I would like to clarify though that
there are many interim steps between someone disagreeing with the
majority and booting them out of the group. I would suggest these
responses, in order of difficulty-

1. entertaining the possibility that the majority might be missing something
2. considering what needs there might be behind the disagreement -
greater issues
3. having a process discussion about the feelings, difficulties and
possible benefits of continuing a difficult discussion.
4. taking a break to think about the issues and personalities involved
5. giving dissenters honest feedback about why their habits of
communicating are difficult (as in one of the recent replies to this
thread).

p.s. watch out about labeling someone as mentally ill as part of your
justification for excluding them. That is both unfair and potential
grounds for charges of discrimination.

  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.