My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet 12-10-18 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Public Meetings
>
CMO
>
2018
>
12-10-2018
>
Agenda Packet 12-10-18 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2018 9:38:48 AM
Creation date
12/7/2018 9:34:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City_Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Packet
City_Council_Meeting_Type
Work Session
City_Council_Meeting_Date
12/10/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
20 <br /> <br />Rules for DecisionRules for DecisionRules for DecisionRules for Decision----Making: Benefits, Disadvantages, and EffectsMaking: Benefits, Disadvantages, and EffectsMaking: Benefits, Disadvantages, and EffectsMaking: Benefits, Disadvantages, and Effects <br /> <br />Person-in-Charge Decides Without Group Discussion <br />This rule gets group members in the habit of doing what they’re <br />told. At meetings, they mostly listen passively to the person <br />talking. <br /> <br />This rule is useful when a decision needs to be made quickly, <br />when the person in charge has the necessary expertise and <br />authority to make the decision alone. <br /> <br />Person-in-Charge Decides AFTER group Discussion <br />The person in charge solicits feedback but remains control as the <br />final decision-maker. Participants see the decision-maker as the <br />person who needs to be convinced. Participants direct comments <br />to the person in charge. <br /> <br />This rule is useful when there is some, but not a lot of time to <br />make a decision. It can help inform the person-in-charge and may <br />build some buy-in from the group members. Participants may feel <br />some sense of control. They may also feel frustrated if they have <br />made a suggestion that is not ultimately reflected in the decision. <br /> <br />Majority Vote <br />With this rule, the goal is to obtain 51% agreement. Participants <br />work to convince one another, it is essentially a battle for the <br />undecided center. Once a majority has been established, the <br />opinions of the minority can be disregarded. <br /> <br />This rule is a familiar procedure that is applied to many situations. <br />It gives people and some opportunity to be heard although they <br />may or may not listen deeply to one another. Can be polarizing. <br /> <br />Consensus (OR Unanimous Agreement) <br />The group works to build understanding and a mutually agreeable <br />solution. Depending on the group, every member (or nearly every <br />member) must be able to support a decision. Since everyone has <br />some power to “block” a decision, each participant can expect his <br />or her perspective to be taken into account. This puts pressure on <br />members to work towards mutual understanding. This rule <br />creates shared ownership and responsibility for solutions and <br />implementation. <br /> <br />This rule works when participants are mutually interdependent <br />and where minority views matter for the wellbeing of the whole. <br />It can take longer and is more difficult than the other rules. A <br />neutral party can help facilitate for efficiency and fairness. <br /> <br />Adapted from Sam Kaner’s Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, 2007 <br />Neutral <br />Party <br />December 10, 2018, Work Session - Item 2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.