|Re: Group Think||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: David Heimann (heimanntheworld.com)|
|Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:12:03 -0700 (PDT)|
Hello Everyone,Here at JP Cohousing we've adopted a process from Laird Schaub where an idea needs at least three meetings (often more) to become consensed as a proposal: one to obtain input from the group on the original question/idea, one to discuss a proposal that a committee (or individual) has created from that input, and one to adopt the proposal as changed from that meeting. In between meetings, we encourage discussion and objections. Hopefully by the time a proposal finally comes up for consensus, all considerations and objections would have been raised and addressed. So far, while we have at times been disgusted by the length of time it has taken to come to a decision (sometimes a year or more), we have not yet regretted a decision we have reached by that process.
The times we have either had blocks of consensus or regrets about a decision have been where we felt pressed for time and didn't allow things to percolate to a conclusion. I imagine the Bay of Pigs decision felt the pressure of time as well!
Regards, David Heimann Jamaica Plain Cohousing Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 14:26:26 -0500 From: Robin Alexander <alexande.robi [at] uwlax.edu> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Group Think To: Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> Message-ID: <5b38ba919e8ed62d525e3cadc606876c [at] mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 We had a situation similar to what Norman describes but found a good way out of it. We had a pet policy brought to the group after quite a bit of work and compromise (we have a surprising degree of polarization around pets - surprising to me anyway). There was some pressure to accept the proposal but those who were opposed stood fast and over the next few months a small group consisting of the "extreme" ends of the issue as well as some moderates met frequently and managed to hash out a policy everyone could live with if not totally happily. Thus we avoided a vote or "forcing" consensus on the group. Many of us never thought that we could pull it off and we were very happy that we did. So the key was incorporating the objectors and their willingness to be incorporated into the working group and the willingness on all sides to make (significant to them) compromises. Robin A. (no flames please) -----Original Message----- From: Norman Gauss [mailto:normangauss [at] charter.net] Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 11:09 PM To: 'Cohousing-L' Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Group Think I have seen group think in action when I have introduced cautions on proposals being deliberated in community meetings. I have been branded an obstructionist by group leaders if my arguments seem to detract from the proposal. If the group is enthusiastic, the non-committed people are likely to go along with them. Then the next step is consensus by the end of the meeting. If that does not happen, the proposer may experience disappointment, which may weigh on the feelings of the group, thus discouraging such an outcome. Also, if consensus is not reached, the community has to re-examine the issue in another meeting, thus risking a decline of group interest and patience to re-examine the proposal. Therefore, the sooner the community accepts the proposal the better, even if there are serious defects that need to be corrected. Sometimes a special committee may be selected to work on a proposal. When the committee finally presents its proposal, there sometimes is pressure to accept it because, "They have worked long and hard on it and they deserve to have the proposal accepted". There is usually ovation when a proposal is consensed, as if the achievement is passage of the proposal rather taking time to be satisfied once passage has occurred. Sometimes after passage, people ask questions on what they have just approved. Because of group think we have sometimes consensed on proposals on which later improvement was needed. Of course, rehashing an issue can be boring to the membership. If the facilitator does not feel that such an item should be put on the agenda because of little interest from the group, the item has been known to be omitted. Norm Gauss Oak Creek Commons Paso Robles, CA <snip>
- Re: Group Think, (continued)
- Re: Group Think Robin Alexander, July 3 2011
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.