Details (Part Two)
continued from above…
Decisions, Programmatic Trial level (okayed, can be opened for process at request, periodic review)
For policies such as they exist at any given group-of-x-participants: Ideas which are generally accepted as non-problematic after a tentative period (or bypassing tentative period if we are all comfortable with doing so) are made agency policy and need not be reviewed at every meeting. A person seeking to promote the acceptance of such a policy decision would make a motion at a regular org meeting, and all org members would be informed between that meeting and the next that such a policy motion would be under consideration at the next meeting. If someone has a problem with such a policy, that person can ask to have this subject placed on the agenda and discussion will ensue. If problem is not resolved, a person with major problems with such a decision can move, at such a meeting, for a reversal of such a policy, but the decision to reverse cannot be made at that meeting. Instead, the information that such a reversal has been proposed will be made available to all level-group participants, present and absent, who will arrive at the next meeting prepared to discuss the issue.
Once every so often, e.g., every six weeks for a group-of-27 level, a periodic review of such decisions should be placed on the agenda, at which point motions to make decision an Ongoing Policy level decision will be entertained.
The procedure for promotion to the next decision-making level, like the procedure for reversal, shall involve notification of all staff one meeting-interval in advance.
Decision, Ongoing Policy level (agency policy for the time being)
Here is a description of the procedure for making or reversing a decision at this semi -permanent level, again as it would apply for any given group-of-x-participants.
Someone or several someones would make a motion at a meeting that at the meeting following, there would be placed on the agenda the first of a minumum of three discussions of the merits of the decision versus the merits of criticisms of the decision (as outlined in the section on formal commentary).
The Information that such discussions have been proposed would go out to all agency staff one meeting-interval in advance of the first discussion.
The results of such a series of three discussions will be one of the following options as determined by 2/3 preference of staff. If 2/3 of staff cannot agree, insufficient consensus is indicated and by default option C, continuation of discussion, is indicated.
Option A: leave or promote decision to ongoing policy level; table discussion for a minimum of six weeks
Option B: demote decision to Programmatic Trial level and within that format consider reversal.
Option C: continue discussion without alteration of decision level.
Decision, permanent policy level (contractual or equivalent)
Primarily describes “decisions” such as the decision to operate as a babysitting cooperative in the first place or to swtich to lifelong communal childrearing or something, or to to seek formal incorporation as a commercial child-care facility offering services to the general public — i.e., changes in mission. Or changes to this decision-making structure itself. Previously established ideas or concepts or definitions of procedures could be concretized as the binding equivalent of this by a process that would create organizational by-laws, if we desire it.
If we don’t, the recognition of this level as a level that exists allows us to identify the source of other decisions that we make as stemming from these, and to discuss, however briefly and theoretically, what would have to change in order for us to seriously consider ideas or proposals which would, in essence, conflict with the bedrock of the organization and its identity.
At the same time, the implication of even listing such things as decision which were made on a level does imply their reversability, which means that we are not prevented from considering any line of thought if sufficient cause is indicated.
The method of promoting a decision to this level, or of demoting an idea from this level, would probably have to take the form of creating a meeting time at the highest level in our schedules for ongoing discussion of the merits of doing so; although a single meeting for the purpose of deciding whether or not to pretend, for the sake of opening dialogue and getting feelings out, that such decisions were more reversible than they actually are, could also be considered.
Formal Procedures for Proposing, Suggesting, Etc.
-
First, the person or persons presenting the org with new ideas for consideration describes the rationale for the idea. What situation or problem is addressed by the idea? (Give the theoretical description of causes and context and so on when idea is being proposed for decisions as the more binding level; less formality is necessary when decisions under consideration are to be at more tentative levels).
-
Second, those presenting ideas will try to anticipate conflicting perspectives that come from values, and priorities given to conflicting values, that the idea might have to be argued against. How have these possible conflicts already been considered? Which of them have been resolved with no “blood shed” so that they don’t conflict after all? Which of them are being proposed, by those presenting the ideas, as necessary casualties of more important values and priorities?
-
Third, those presenting the ideas will describe how the idea addresses the situation or problem better than it is currently being addressed. How will the implementation look? Or if the idea being presented isn’t “fleshed out” to that point yet, and those presenting the ideas are seeking input as to how to implement, make this plain at this point. Likewise, if those presenting an idea do have specific and well-developed concepts of how the implementation of the idea would look, make that apparent. If those presenting an idea have some specific ideas, they may be committed to them or they may be very open to alternate suggestions. Make this apparent if strong feelings about specifics are involved. Strong feelings have validity, at least to an extent, and need not be disguised. Another aspect of this “specifics” part of an idea presentation should be a mention of the “therefore we have to’s”, the nuts and bolts of practical implementation decisions that would arise if the overall idea were approved – if these things have been thought out. Finally, if alternative routes towards implementation have already been considered and rejected in favor of the one or ones that the idea-presenters are the most fond of, it is useful at this point to give an overview of that process of consideration.
IN UPPER-LEVEL, MORE PERMANENT & SERIOUS DECISION PROPOSALS, THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE PRESENTED AS THE PRESENTER DESIRES, with regards to whether or not questions should or should not be brought up as they occur. The formal process of waiting, and responding with criticism formalized as follows, is recommended for most efficient processing under most circumstances.
Formal Procedures for Criticizing an Idea or Proposal
One at a time, everyone has a chance to address the idea from the first category of criticism; then, one at a time, everyone has a chance to address the idea from the next category of criticism. And so on…
-
First, criticisms of the operant problem definition. Is that really how things are? Is it really a problem if that is how things are?
-
Second, criticisms of the priorities given to operant values at the expense of other values. Okay, if it is indeed a problem, as described, will addressing it as described not conflict with such and such other, perhaps more important, operant values? [do not include values pertaining to the continued survival of the agency at this point; that would be a practical. see below]
-
Third, criticisms of the practicality of the proposed solution. If we did what has been suggested, would it really address the problem described? Can we, in fact, do what has been suggested? If we do indeed do it, will it result in serious agency problems that threaten the survival or viability of the agency? Will it result in serious employee problems that endanger our professional careers? And so on.
-
Other criticisms of the proposed solution which do not seem to fit in any of the above categories.
NOTE: the word “criticism” is used here in the broader sense of affirmative as well as negative criticism.
FINALLY…
At structured intervals, meetings at the levels small enough to accomodate it should include non-specific, wide open go arounds, in which each person in turn says whatever is on her or his mind for a certain number of uninterrupted minutes, then the next person, etc. This increases the flexibility and completeness of our communication.
===============
OK, that’s enough to get started with. If I were really doing this, I would be soliciting feedback before I really kicked this off, so have at it. (But please concentrate on the specifics of the structure rather than doing a global “Wouldn’t work, can’t have anarchy, naa na na naa naa”).
Oh, and if I tried it and it didn’t work in the sense of veering off into a non-anarchy org, I’d see where it didn’t work and I’d modify accordingly and get another group of volunteers and try again. If it didn’t work in any other sense, then as long as I had volunteers not all stomping off in disgust, we’d tweak and modify from outside the system and “reset” and start over, until we at least got a system robust enough to allow for tweaking from within, and at that point it would kind of be out of my hands and take on a life of its own.
