Hi COP-Please see my SBAR about the integrated decision process
Situation: we need some feedback about governance process. Specifically around integrated decision making
Background: We have been practicing with governance meetings for under a year. Today we had one of our first really challenging governance meetings. We have policy in one of our circles stating that if a workshop was cancelled the trainer who was meant to conduct that workshop should receive some compensation (not full compensation). The policy outlined one parameter in particular (when trainee numbers fall below a particular threshold). Today a partner brought a tension about changing the policy to reflect another situation where a trainer should receive compensation (where the trainer is not a good fit for the project). The proposal ended with one other partner stating an objection and the two worked together to then creating a new version of the policy.
Where this got complicated is the next item on the agenda was a different partner stating that the new policy itself should be scrapped and a newer shorter policy should replace it. This met with a number of objections and we ran out of time in the meeting to process the tension some we are trying for our first time to do governance in email.
The issue is that basically all 8 people on the call had a tension with the newly proposed policy. It is likely that the proposer (P) and the first objector (O1) would have to come to some agreement but then we weren't sure after that first objection, how to treat the next objections. Would the second objector (O2) be objecting to the new proposal suggested by P and O1? Who do they have to work with in the integration round? P only? It seemed likely that we would be in a situation where the solution for P and O2 might contradict or nullify some of the objections brought up by O1. Do we just keep going and going until everyone agrees? It seems counter to my understanding of the process.
In the end we decided we had two options
- 1 continue to process this tension in email (a new process for us) and attempt using email as a new process for working through a governance tension or
- 3 create a small working group that would hear people’s concerns and write a policy that implemented them all as best as they could (knowing that some concerns would not be addressed by this policy).
We decided to go with option 1 so that we could go down the objection train and continue to try and process this via the governance process.
Assessment: we are unclear on how we go from the first objection to the second objection especially where the second objector’s tensions might change things that were necessary to ease the first objector. Our fear is an unending loop of objections that ends in hands being thrown in the air.
Request: Please share your thoughts on how to process objection after objection in a situation where there is much disagreement about the eventual outcome. It is possible we are overlooking something very simple so bear that in mind. Are we on the right track and it just takes time or should we think about it in another way (i.e. create a small working group to works through the issue)