Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Communications within a group

[Rob Sandelin (robsan]

 Taking one small thing posted by Craig D. Willis:

>but the kind of decision-making process that a group adopts; the
>political nature of the community being created; the relationship
>between the nature of the community and its ability to attract people
>to cohousing.

I would like to expand on this a little.  There are several places 
along the path of developing cohousing where power struggles and ego 
problems emerge.  I have personally been part of a group (a political 
one, not cohousing) which fell apart due to poor communications.  I 
have watched cohousing groups struggle with the same issues and have 
experienced some of it in our own group.

IMHO  the number one communication problem is that when a leader (or 
other member) has a behavior that is causing problems they do not hear 
about it from the group.  Groups which don't clarify or communicate 
problems very well can end up with one or two people running the show, 
with the tacit support of the rest of the group. Authority figures such 
as architects are classic examples of where this happens.  The group 
empowers someone by letting them drive the process.  This is not bad, 
but it needs to be understood that by letting someone else take on all 
the work, decision making, or process running that if this should not 
work out, and the group never takes on the task of talking about 
communication behavior problems, it is as much the groups fault as it 
may be the individuals. Unfortunately often the "leaders" get vilified 
and excommunicated and the group does the same thing again to someone else.

The key remedy for this is regular and consistent behavior feedback.  
Couching communications problems in behavior feedback language can help 
keep small communications issues under control and help "leaders" 
excel.  Behavior feedback language is simple, you state the specific 
behavior and then state how it makes you feel. For example a leader has 
ignored a minority idea by cutting off discussion and going to a vote.  
A behavior feedback response would be:  "When you cut off the 
discussion, I feel angry and left out."   When a leader  hears this 
from one person, assuming they have integrity, it makes them realize 
that they need to build some bridges with this person.  When a leader 
hears this from 4-5 people it makes them realize that their behavior is 
causing a problem with the group and needs correction. This should not 
just be used for negative behaviors, but also to acknowledge and 
encourage positive behaviors as well.  The balance at minimum should be 
equal, as much praise and support as complaint, and hopefully the 
balance will be tipped much to the positive side.

A big assumption to making this work is that those who are doing the 
leading have integrity, that is to say, no personal agenda and their 
goals are for the best of the group.  It also assumes a willingness and 
openness to hear frank appraisals of personal behavior and its effects 
on others in the group.

If you end up with domineering, ego-driven, poor communicating 
leadership which drives people out of the group, it is the groups fault 
as much as the individuals.  Leaders need to be trained how to be 
humble, good listeners, fair, open and balanced.  Most don't get this 
training in a group context and end up far short of what they could be 
if only someone told them about their mistakes


Rob Sandelin
Puget Sound Cohousing Network
Building a better society, one neighborhood at a time