Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Fwd: Mechanisms for Resolving Community Challenges

[Michael Black (mblack]

Hi Jenny,

Here at Yulupa Cohousing we have a Heart Team.  We prefer the name Heart
Team over Conflict Management Group, etc. because we are all working on here
on coming from our hearts. We even have a Heart Keeper at our General
Meetings and anyone here can step into that role at any GM or committee
meeting. 

The Team is utilized by those who are having a conflict when the discussions
between them are not helping to resolve the conflict. The Team also gently
enters into areas when not specifically invited when they feel that a
conflict is brewing. The Team has also called a special meeting when on one
occasion, a member negatively affected many members. In this situation, it
was revealed that there were as many members holding the position that they
were not affected by the member in question as were those negatively
affected. The Heart Team reminded those present to come from "I" statements,
to take responsibility for being 'triggered" and to refrain from blaming and
shaming. We used the opportunity to share what we knew about "sending dark
arrows" and Non Violent Communication. We all went deeper that evening,
which is the best use of a situation like this. It is hard for me to imagine
a problem that is beyond being addressed by conflict resolution. Of course,
if a member truly is not a good fit for the community, conflict resolution
can only go so far.

In regards to the situation that you are presenting, the Heart Team would
discuss it and then a member of the Team would approach the person who has
the perception and discuss it with him/her. They would then bring it back to
the Team for discussion. The Team would either agree with the person's
perceptions or not. If not, they would go back to the person in question and
share that the problem may be in the eyes of the beholder. If they agreed
with the perception that one or more members actions are harmful to the
group they would then enter into dialog with them utilizing the established
Vision and Values of the community. It is of the utmost importance to
establish the Vision and Values as early as possible and to have them
include a commitment to entering into conflict resolution when members are
stuck in conflict.

We had something similar happen here when our group was forming. A well
meaning couple came in "to help straighten out our community." In the
process they were sowing seeds of distrust. A few of us talked about it
among ourselves and a few of us tried to talk to them about it. Eventually
it became apparent to the majority that their inclusion would be an on-going
challenge to the group. They left after receiving enough negative feedback.

There is a way of giving negative feedback/mirroring that comes from the
heart, that is gentle and caring, though not all of our feedback was gentle
and caring at the time. There was at least one instance where strong words
were used when more subtle and gentle communications did not work. We had a
few members who dropped out during the community formation process. They
were perceived as difficult and they realized that they were not being
embraced by the community. It is better for the community to have these
people leave instead of having them aboard and repeatedly draining the
community's energy.

On the other hand, what we are learning is how our stories often limit
ourselves and others. We are also learning how our judgments of others based
upon our perceptions of their expressions or actions places these people in
boxes as if they are incapable of change. We can change our stories so that
they acknowledge that a mistake was made and that the community setting will
help the person in question to not keep repeating that mistake.

Building community is a beautiful, sometimes difficult, rewarding and
lengthy process. 

In Community,

Michael Black
Yulupa Cohousing


> Hi, this is my first post here; I have been lurking intermittently.
> 
> At North Oakland Cohousing in California (not yet built), we're working on
> filling in the gaps in our governance structure.  We're working on conflict
> resolution and on refining our consensus guidelines, but the part I'm
> looking into is how to create structures to use when one or more members
> have concerns that can't be properly addressed with conflict resolution.
> 
> What sort of structure could we put in place to use if someone had
> concerns that one or more members' actions were harmful to the group as a
> whole, or contrary to our values?
> 
> I'm worried that using conflict resolution in a situation like that would
> put the burden of taking care of the group's needs on the person who stood
> up and made a fuss, and it would be easy for the more passive -- or conflict
> averse -- people to write it off an interpersonal conflict, or even blame
> the messenger.
> 
> I would find security in knowing that there was a step-by-step mechanism to
> use to address problems, if the need arose; a process where everyone could
> feel heard and supported by the community.
> 
> As someone recently posted, it's good to have systems in place before you
> need them.
> 
> Jenny Guy
> North Oakland Cohousing
> Oakland, CA
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 
>