3 ms·
Why was it a big improvement in the 1800's but not now? I don't understand this sentiment -- passing laws looks almost identical today, and I think congress was
by codemac 7y ago
Why was it a big improvement in the 1800's but not now? I don't understand this sentiment -- passing laws looks almost identical today, and I think congress was even more divided (e.g. just post civil war?).
I've seen RR used extremely effectively in contentious meetings to get to resolution -- because action is more important to the group than the individual's inclusion.
Susskind's methods always seemed like the work you should do outside of the actual meetings. Look at the steps around "fact finding", "assigning responsibilities", etc -- that's exactly what congress does today! (and what you should be doing outside your meetings)
Are there any videos of how a meeting would be run with these rules? If I fly across the country to meet with a board and we need to make decisions that day, how do I accomplish that with consensus building?
- bluGill 7y agoThe improvement wasn't in congress, parliament, or other government bodies. The improvement was tiny small gatherings where previously there were no rules and so people would shout each other down. By having a set of rules meetings could assure order, and have a previously agreed on process to ensure not just the loudest voices were heard - without spending far too much time on debate as everybody says the same things in different words. There are many possible rules. Roberts is better than most because most people are used to them (because they have been around so long). Even if you have never read the book, you probably have been in a meeting where someone says "I move..." responded by "second", a debate, and then a vote. Just knowing this order exists keeps things moving.