Fri 10 Feb 2017


John Rhoads Public Seen by 432

I am of the opinion that inclusiveness is good WHEN those that are partaking in decisions are doing so because of a genuine interest and have been "vetted" by way of an official membership in Democracy at Work. As it is now, I am not sure which of us are members and which are slipping in through the back door as provocateurs. I'm not comfortable with this. Having just anyone able to jump in and muddy the water is going to be a time waster.


Betsy Avila Fri 10 Feb 2017

Please resist the urge to feed trolls, folks. We definitely don't want censor or kick anyone out so let's do our best to be civil and supportive. We're all brothers and sisters in this movement.


Vic Jasin Fri 10 Feb 2017

If anyone who disagrees with you is a troll then mea culpa I fit the description. Never mind folks I won't bother you any more I will unsub.

Victor G.L. Jasin B.Comm FRC
(who believes in Mutual Capitalism and knows there are limits to Consensus democracy from experience. NOT A TROLL a reality) ;-).
Later. :walking:


Joe Sat 11 Feb 2017

So we have a great example here of how NOT to communicate in this group and to learn from and to refine what happens here moving forward...

Every one of us is often guilty of believing our way is the best way. But never is any one way the best way - because too many others will disagree and leave. Those that leave become terrible marketers for the initiative.

When we talk more than we listen, we often turn more people off than activate them to engage further and deeper.

The very first thing this group MUST succeed at is to stay together - even within all the disagreement about the best approach to get to the mission objective.

We MUST accept one another as we exist today and hope we ALL grow closer along the journey.

If we separate then we will fail!

Leadership is very tricky. The best leaders know how to find compromise within ALL extreme POVs.

When things get complicated then look for solutions within simplification.

Might I suggest we establish a written set of agreement statements, prioritize these and see what emerges from the exercise. The list then becomes an important document that ALL - old and new - participants can continually reference moving forward. (It's important that the list be dynamic in form and ever-changeable, but don't worry about this piece just yet. Let's first just co-create in harmony some possible list options. We'll prioritize as a next step.)

A simple exercise to attempt to bring us all back together!


Jon Iten Sat 11 Feb 2017

Sounds to me like Vic was trying to say democracy in the workplace can't and won't work. I think it's a good thing he decided to leave the group. I also think anyone else who enters the group with that idea should not be allowed in.


John Rhoads Sun 12 Feb 2017

This is my logic about vetting: There is a basketball team (d@w) where the object of the game is to put the ball through the hoop (create workplace democracy). As a team, we encourage anyone who wants to participate to do so with the intention of putting the ball through the hoop. However, without vetting players that want to put the ball through the hoop, we end up having members on our team that would rather drop-kick the ball into the bleachers than put it through the hoop - or who feel that putting the ball through the hoop is not doable. It defeats our purpose. So, my stance is to have a very basic oath of understanding of what THE mission is and what we do. If a person cannot agree up front about this objective, they get screened. It's really quite simple and harmless. By taking an "oath" of sorts, it would preclude people from redefining our objective ad lib. Our mission (objective) is really not open for debate IMO, but everything else in between is. :smiley:


John Rhoads Sun 12 Feb 2017

I tweaked the group description to be more specific in light of this threads topic. If anyone would like to help me word our description to help people understand what we do, I'm all ears.