Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: How Objections Speed Up Decision-Making

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

I think the post is generally useful but wanted to ask -- is Stone's Throw is 
sociocratic?

Thank you,
Sharon.

On Dec 25, 2014, at 11:27 PM, Jerry McIntire <jerry.mcintire [at] gmail.com> 
wrote:

> 
> Thanks for the summary Sharon, very helpful. I'll share it with our members
> as we talk further about sociocracy.
> 
> Happy Holidays to all!
> 
> Jerry
> 
> Jerry McIntire
> Stone's Throw Ecovillage, in the heart of Wisconsin's beautiful Driftless
> region
> http://stonesthrowcommunity.wordpress.com/
> 1-608-637-6620
> 
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Sharon Villines <sharon [at] 
> sharonvillines.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> One of the ways that the principles and methods used by sociocracy speed
>> up decision-making is to go directly to the objections. The proposal should
>> state the perceived advantages or reasons why. After clarifying questions,
>> there is usually no need to hear arguments in favor or to repeat the
>> discussion that has probably already taken place in the team or in previous
>> membership meetings. Instead:
>> 
>> Prequel:  In order to write an effective proposal,
>> 
>> Decision-Making Process (often called the consent process)
>> 
>> 1. Discuss or request input on the problem or opportunity involving
>> everyone who will be affected by a proposed decision.
>> 
>> 2. Present the proposal
>> 
>> 3. Answer clarifying questions.
>> 
>> Questions should be clean questions with no embedded messages. If there is
>> an embedded message, don't discuss it. Answer as if it had been a clean
>> question or defer it for rounds.
>> 
>> 4. Reaction round of 1-2 word responses to determine if there are any
>> concerns or objections that seem unresolvable or serious.
>> 
>> t. Do another round to state concerns and objections in greater detail t:
>> 
>> (a) refer back them back committee or
>> 
>> (b) to begin begin consent rounds to resolve them.
>> 
>> 5. Consent round asking if there are any remaining objections. Is this an
>> objection that will influence your ability to support this decision?
>> 
>> Addressing concerns and resolving objections is a group process, not the
>> duty of the facilitator. The facilitator makes a decision on how to proceed
>> but this decision is subject to objections.
>> 
>> The facilitator participates as an equal, including in rounds.
>> 
>> The goal is consent to a decision everyone can support operationally.
>> 
>> Effectiveness, transparency, and accountability are the prime values in
>> this process:
>> --What will get us to the most effective decision?
>> --Does everyone have all the information relevant to this decision?
>> --Who will be accountable for the outcome of the decision?
>> 
>> Discussion may be interspersed with rounds. Rounds establish and maintain
>> equivalence in the room. They keep decision-making balanced by encouraging
>> everyone to participate equally. The reticent as well as the more
>> expansive. Discussion, free form or dialogue between 2 or more persons can
>> be helpful to clarify questions or to provide information others in the
>> group may not have.
>> 
>> A proposal needs a person(s) to make a decision operational and a method
>> of measuring outcomes. If there is no plan for making the decision
>> operational or any way to measure effectiveness, the decision will probably
>> be meaningless. Not worth the time to make.
>> 
>> Sharon
>> ----
>> Sharon Villines
>> Sociocracy: A Deeper Democracy
>> http://www.sociocracy.info
>> 
>> 
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 
>