Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consequences ?

[Ted Rau (ted]

Sorry to hear your frustration, Diana!

I know what you mean. My interpretation of those situations was always
that's because of an underlying issue. So we can't "fix" accountability
without fixing the independent, underlying issues. Hard to tell what they
are.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 7:46 AM Diana Carroll <dianaecarroll [at] gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ted says "So if someone violates it, those who made the policy need to
> contact the
> one who did it and hear what's going on and share what the impact is of
> violations."
>
> I hear this a LOT in cohousing, carrying the strong implication that people
> would start behaving differently if only the could understand the impact of
> their behavior. In practice, I've found this to be true way less often than
> I'd been led to believe. I'm starting to believe this is The Big Lie about
> living in community. 🙁
>
> Diana
> Mosaic Commons Berlin MA
>
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 8:32 AM Ted Rau <ted [at] sociocracyforall.org> wrote:
>
> > I think there are two different cases here. One I'll call noise. The
> other
> > is recurring behavior.
> >
> > *Noise*
> > When there's stuff left behind in the Common House, people are often
> > outraged by what they perceive as disrespect.
> > Yet, I want to advocate for considering simple numbers. Let's say (for
> > simplicity of numbers) that we have 100 people that could leave stuff
> > behind. Now let's say that each of the 100 people accidentally leaves
> > something behind 1/year. Making a mistake once a year is not a lot. But
> > that means that there will be two things left behind in the Common House
> > per week. That will drive the CH cleaner uppers crazy.
> > In order to get that number down, from 1 mishap/year to, let's say, 1
> > mishap every 10 years, that would need a crazy amount of control, systems
> > and reminders. *I* wouldn't want to live in that community!
> > So echoing what Karen said, the trade-off of reducing mishaps and noise
> > might simply be too high. So, for many things, I'd say we're better off
> as
> > a community if we count our blessings and factor in those mishaps because
> > we expect they will occur. I see many communities plan for perfect
> behavior
> > but we have to factor in humans, and humans make mistakes.
> >
> > I once rushed into the common house to clean up something I had left
> behind
> > (which was pointed out by email to everyone) only to see my neighbor -
> our
> > founder - almost done cleaning up my mess. I apologized profusely and he
> > said: "To me, all those messes are a sign for the community and the
> common
> > house being used. To me, they are all signs of exactly what I want from
> > this community - humans sharing the space. Doing a few dishes here and
> > there is nothing compared to that."
> >
> > The other one is *recurring* behavior. In those cases, to me, it becomes
> a
> > governance issue. If you have a policy, I assume there is impact from
> > violating it. (If there is no impact from a violation, don't make a
> > policy!!)
> > So if someone violates it, those who made the policy need to contact the
> > one who did it and hear what's going on and share what the impact is of
> > violations. It's peer-to-peer accountability.
> > There are three common reasons preventing this from happening:
> >
> >    - If people avoid the conflict. It might be useful to think about why
> >    you make rules/policies then. Do you believe they're worth following?
> > Then
> >    make sure they're followed. That might mean feedback, conversation,
> > fees,
> >    consequences, or whatever you think is appropriate and helpful.
> >    - If there is no policy. In a peer system, it can be hard to hold
> people
> >    accountable to an imagined standard without stating the standard
> >    explicitly. So then spell it out. But not in vague statements like "be
> >    respectful" but in actionable requests like "no poop on the lawn". So
> >    more policy than value statements.
> >    - If everyone is in charge. If a policy is made by 100 people then no
> >    one is in charge (called 'diffusion of responsibility'). If that's the
> >    case, governance needs to be reconsidered to you know who is
> responsible
> >    for what and can act accordingly.
> >
> > (I think/talk about this a lot because lack of accountability is such a
> > common complaint in peer-oriented settings. If you find my logic
> helpful, I
> > talk more about these topics here
> > <
> >
> https://www.sociocracyforall.org/event/horizontal-accountability-september2023/
> > >
> > .)
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 10:10 AM Karen Gimnig Nemiah <gimnig [at] gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When you ask about consequences, I’m curious what your goal is? Getting
> > > clear about this is essential determining a path forward.
> > >
> > > Typically the answer I get is that folks want to change the behavior
> > > (leaving dishes, poop etc). I’m sure we’d all like a magic wand for
> > > changing other people’s behavior. The follow up question is: At what
> > cost?
> > > Certainly there are consequences you could institute that would change
> > > behavior, and I’ve never met a community yet that is willing to use
> them.
> > > It turns out that we’d rather be nice to each other and support
> connected
> > > relationships than keep our common house free of dirty dishes.
> > >
> > > Consequences are fundamentally about applying pressure to make someone
> > > behave differently than they would otherwise. This is a power over
> > approach
> > > and like all power over approaches it will always harm relationships. I
> > > can’t tell you whether it’s worth it. That’s your call, but mostly
> folks
> > I
> > > work with decide that it isn’t worth it for these kinds of things.
> > >
> > > So if we aren’t going to try to force people to change their behavior,
> > what
> > > options do we have? At least the following two:
> > > 1. We can live with the behavior. We can decide that the benefits of
> > > community, of which there are many, are worth the cost of sometimes
> > > cleaning up someone else’s mess and make our peace with that.
> > > 2. Vulnerability. We can share our wants, needs and expectations,
> without
> > > blame or judgement and trust that our neighbors care enough to take our
> > > needs into account. This is hard work. If it is outside your
> community’s
> > > capacity right now, there are ways to grow that capacity. CohoUS offers
> > > trainings that would help including one I’m teaching on conflict
> starting
> > > later this month.
> > >
> > > For me it’s usually a combination of the two that works best, and it’s
> a
> > > lot of emotional work to get there, but I think it’s worth it. I grow
> > every
> > > time I do it.
> > > --
> > > In Community,
> > > Karen Gimnig
> > > 678-705-9007
> > > www.karengimnig.net
> > > Scheduling Calendar
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://calendar.google.com/calendar/appointments/schedules/AcZssZ1HbmZphFgCZM9GqLtIUeijkmgdXNGvkPR6Mi7nN7dBSzxKaCxl6tCrW2_eh6dPXn0OhtT3z4Fw
> > > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > > http://L.cohousing.org/info
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Leader of Content & Training Sociocracy For All
> > <http://www.sociocracyforall.org/>
> > Certified sociocracy consultant  <https://www.iscb.earth/team/ted-rau/>
> > I offer coaching/consulting <http://www.sociocracyforall.org/coaching>
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > http://L.cohousing.org/info
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://L.cohousing.org/info
>
>
>
>

-- 

Leader of Content & Training Sociocracy For All
<http://www.sociocracyforall.org/>
Certified sociocracy consultant  <https://www.iscb.earth/team/ted-rau/>
I offer coaching/consulting <http://www.sociocracyforall.org/coaching>