One of several useful lessons I learned at my hell job was lunchtime rules- a quick set of rules to help groups come up with acceptable decisions quickly. I don't claim that these are good for deciding important life issues, but I find them invaluable for dealing with things like "Where shall we go to lunch?" If the difference between an ideal result and an acceptable result is worth less than the time of the people involved, this stuff works.
The rules )
So next time I say "lunchtime rules", this is what I mean. The core of it is the insistence on counter-plans as opposed to simple refusals. Saying "no" doesn't help anyone get closer to a solution. If you don't care enough to help the solution happen, you don't care enough to be a part of the group.

I'm usually OK with a relaxed view of counter-plans; a less specific plan could be acceptable, but a previously rejected plan is not. But for maximum efficiency, the counter-plan should never be a step backward.

[UPDATED based on comments]

(Should counter-plan be hyphenated? It looks odd either way)

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910 1112131415
16 171819202122
23 242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2017 12:51 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios