John Sechrest wrote: (01)
> So, instead of saying "easy to leave", I think that in reality,
> you need to have some semi-permiable boundries, where it is possible
> to leave, but there are strings or ties or insentives not to leave. (02)
More or less what I meant. No rigid ties, but the sense of community and
agreement that aligns with the individual's goals and desires introduces a
reluctance to leave since the group is seen as being better than the
alternatives with similar goals. (03)
Mostly what I am concerned with is having too many individuals in the group
that are at odds with the group goals (as opposed to thinking there are
better methods, for example). (04)
Thanks, (05)
Garold (Gary) L. Johnson (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: John Sechrest [mailto:sechrest@peak.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 1:06 PM
To: yak@collab.blueoxen.net
Subject: [yak@collab] Re: Dangling Threads 2003-03-17 (07)
"Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" <dynalt@dynalt.com> writes: (08)
% There is a concept I encountered years ago that works well for me, called
a
% "covenanting group". This term has been co-opted by various religious
% organizations recently, but it is an observable, general phenomenon. (09)
Interesting. These are the current focus of the church that I am
currently going to.... (010)
% * Make it easy for individuals to leave, and possible to ask individuals
who
% are destructive of the covenant to be asked to leave. (011)
the thing that makes a "group" is the boundry that identifies
"us" vs "them"... Some how people need to be able to identify
as a group. They need to be able to distinquish. that is why we
see mechanisms for group forming where people adopt common
markers. Similar clothes, Same hair cut, Uniforms, Similar patterns
of speach. These are used as markers. (012)
If a group is going to engage deeply, then there has to be
some bonds on people. If you have a totally permiable boundry
between "us" and "them", then it becomes too easy for people
to avoid things that cause discomfort. And so some types
of intimate conversation become impossible. (013)
So, instead of saying "easy to leave", I think that in reality,
you need to have some semi-permiable boundries, where it is possible
to leave, but there are strings or ties or insentives not to leave. (014)
This is what can lead you into doing more when the going gets
hard. (015)
My wife and I have been discussing on and off the last 2 years about
the difference between groups that focus on the individual as the
center of things vs groups that focus on the group as the center of things. (016)
It is an ongoing conversation. (017)
In my classes, I use a set of Books from Oxford University about
forming groups. (018)
I have been looking at using a different book: (019)
The Team Handbook by Peter R. Scholtes, Brian L Joiner, Barbara J. Streibel
Oriel Incorporated http://www.orielinc.com
ISBN 1-884731-11-2 (020)
I am finding it a bit too business oriented, that I think it will
not work well in my class. But it might be a good place for us
to start in our discussion about people dynamics. (021)
-----
John Sechrest . Helping people use
CTO PEAK - . computers and the Internet
Public Electronic . more effectively
Access to Knowledge,Inc .
1600 SW Western, Suite 180 . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
Corvallis Oregon 97333 . (541) 754-7325
. http://www.peak.org/~sechrest (022)
--
This message is archived at: (023)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=200303222105.h2ML
5kr05887@jas.peak.org (024)
--
This message is archived at: (025)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=MIEJJJFBHJEBDEKGPHOPAEJGEAAA.dynalt@dynalt.com (026)
|