RE: Decision Making: who decides what? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (floriferous![]() |
|
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:07:01 -0600 (MDT) |
It has been my experience that larger communities do well to create smaller group decision making opportunities. The key to making this work seem to revolve around communication. When teams do make decisions, what they are deciding should be advertised so anybody that cares can show up or give input. Also once a decision is made, it also needs to be advertised, so people know about it. I think there also has to be a standard set about timely participation. The classic problem with passive aggressiveness is that people don't get involved because they are in a snit, then come in at the end and kibosh it. This is behavior which in my experience really should result in intervention work. Another intervention place is when a team does a bunch of work, and then the same few people nitpick it to death in large group. If you don't intervene in this case, most teams will fail, people will be pissed off and quit. Some ideas for team guidelines: Small teams probably should not be making decisions that have requirements that everyone DO something. For example, a pet policy, which effects everybody in an active way, might be better done in whole group work. A work requirement on everybody, an assessment change. Teams should be given tasks which are narrow, but can be broad. For example, the commonhouse team decides on the new chairs for the commonhouse patio. They solicit input and ideas, but they make the choice, and spend the money. In general, teams do well to have budget authority over things in their domain. The commonhouse team budget should be spent by the team, on the things the team thinks it needs. At the budget cycle time, a review can be done of what each team spent their funds on, which will give oversight enough for teams not to abuse the process. One of the key problems many cohousing groups fall into is trying to please everybody, all the time. This usually breaks down at some point, if only from exhaustion. This is a good reason to use teams, and letting those who care about it run those things. I don't care what color tablecloths to buy and so I don't go to that team meeting. I do care about the dishwasher decision so I show up for that one. Teams should have decision authority over their domains as appropriate, with exceptions for issues which may have financial effect outside their budget, or projects which effect people not on the team. For example, the landscape team does the landscape. They own it, are in charge, take advice and input, but the decisions to build a new parking area affects many people not on the team so the teams outreaches and makes a larger group proposal. Commonhouse, community meals, kids, maintenance, etc can all function this way. If you have a board, it can be helpful to give them oversight responsibilities for the teams. This way, if a team goofs up, the board can give them feedback and suggest how to do it better in the future. Goof ups are normal, and you should expect at least a few each year. The key thing is not to go off blaming and cursing, but acknowledge and correct. The biggest mistake teams make is that they don't outreach enough. When teams don't outreach enough what happens is that they suddenly find that their plans are not supported. When your teams function well, then general meeting time can be spent in processes that build community relationships, and announcements. Instead of general meeting agendas with 7-8 items, you drop down to meetings with 1-2, and often only discussions. Sharingwood has operated this way for some time. We have 1, two hour a month meeting, which typically has 1-2 agenda items, a community building thing, announcements, and eat lunch. But active teams might meet twice a month, and do a bunch of stuff. We do expect teams that are spending money or making decisions to post their agendas three days in advance of the meeting, and most teams working on bigger group issues, spend considerable time holding input circles, discussions, email trains, etc to get ideas, input and buyin. Occasionally a team makes a decision, takes an action, and a person ends up unhappy with the action. If they whine publicly about it, they often get little sympathy or support, since they were expected to show up with their stuff earlier. And sometimes teams don't always do a good enough job getting input and they usually get good feedback and learn to do better in the future. After awhile this kind of self-correcting leads to a very smooth process. And teams can always punt stuff to the larger group if they feel they need to. Control freaks often have a problem with teams making decisions, especially when the decision made is, NOT HOW I WOULD DO IT. This behavior, when repeated, requires intervention. We use task forces for specific projects. For example, last meeting the patio task force, after a couple of meetings and a couple email threads, put up a choice for how to fund the commonhouse patio project. The large meeting process took I think about 10 minutes, really just choosing between two options using a 2/3rds majority vote. The small group process has taken several hours of planning time, design etc., but that is only 4 peoples time. The majority of the community spent less than 30 minutes total on the project, leaving the details to the few who were interested. In our community, the facilitators and the board decide which decision making process to use, and it usually runs pretty smoothly. But it is not perfect, no system works all the time, and after you live here awhile you internalize that thought and don't expect perfection. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood Community www.sharingwood.org where there is GASP!, a rental open! This has not occurred in awhile. A nice place for a single person. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02 _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
-
Decision Making: who decides what? Lynn Nadeau, June 26 2002
- RE: Decision Making: who decides what? Rob Sandelin, June 28 2002
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.