Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Group Think - Three Meetings

[Norman Gauss (normangauss]

The three meeting process suggested by Laird Schaub has been deemed as
potentially exhausting in our community, especially for relatively minor
proposals.  We meet once a month, and extending consideration of a proposal
over a three month period can be tedious.  There is such a powerful desire
to feel a sense of moving forward, that requiring three monthly meetings
before seeking final approval has been challenged by an alternate procedure
called "Fast Track Decisions".  

In the "Fast Track Decision", one only needs to post a proposal on email, on
the bulletin board, and distribute printed copies for 10 days  before asking
for consensus at a business meeting if no serious unresolved concerns have
been voiced.

The "Fast Track Decision" procedure is suggested for proposals unlikely to
generate much discussion or controversy.  Urgency, safety, or cost might be
other considerations.  Initiators are encouraged to acknowledge a concern
within three days of receiving it.  In the event that serious concerns are
presented and remain unresolved, the full decision-making process similar to
Laird's is resorted to. 

Norm Gauss
Oak Creek Commons
Paso Robles, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: David Heimann [mailto:heimann [at] theworld.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 1:11 PM
To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Group Think



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>
_________________________________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/