Decisions
i wonder if it is at all possible to come to a conclusion
as a group. Or whether the environment itself
precludes such a thing.
My contention would be that the lurkers, transients,
etc., are definitely part and parcel of the medium. However, if the core
group were to agree to a given process, those
who have not participated in the discussion or decision making regarding
the process would likely be the most apparent source of distraction from
carrying it out.
I wonder if social contracts aren't in fact, the currency of experience,
and therefore a practiced part of our decision making process. We would therefore
likely translate any abstraction (in comparative terms) into social contract
terms before analyzing it.
. Here at Netdynam we can afford to be fairly democratic because no one has
felt the need to push the limits of social norms
and because we have nothing truly significant to decide. Freed from even
the biological and social pressures that force real life groups to come to
a decision, we can simply talk on forever. If that is democracy, it seems
rather sterile even when compared to something as dull as a local school
bond election. I wonder if being free from the pressure to end debate and
act, rather than enhancing the democratic process, simply frees us from the
need for the process. Unfortunately, real life is
not so kind, nor should it be.
In most situations with which I'm familiar, when decision making has
not been discussed, the default is the democratic decision making method.
This is in contrast to the autocratic and consensus methods. However, with
every method, the possibility exists of well-meaning individuals acting on
behalf of the group without requisite permission from whatever decision making
process.
Interestingly, this is almost always a recurring topic in the
"Bid for Power" stage of COG's Ladder. If these symptoms
are being correctly interpreted, it could mean that this group is making
progress toward the "Constructive stage."
Autocratic: One person or body makes the decision for others who are affected
by the decision.
Democratic: 50% plus one, majority prevails.
Consensus: 80 to 85% of the people support the decision, and the rest can "live with" the decision.
In summary, what is the role of lurker,
if any, in group decision making?
Stage I: "We're all friends. We don't have to worry about
rule of law, a constitution, list governance, policing
etc... We're all good people, nice to eachother, etc... That (whatever that
is fill in your favorite problem) won't happen here."
Stage II: THAT happens. Whoops....
Stage III: The hierarchy emerges. Heck, it was there all the time wasn't it. It consists of the most senior members, sometimes founding members, sometimes the ones who post a lot. They get together and pretty much decide what to do in a crisis.
Stage IV: Taking action. This was done FAST without a lot of
forethought or (in my case) advance notification.
Return to
Index