Sadly we all need to put up with difficult people sometime in one sphere or another.

If you’re not the leader then as Pete says “it all pays the same”. Yes it can be annoying, but when it comes to work I reason that I’m payed to be here X hours and how I fill in those hours is up to the boss, if he wants me to wants me to run in circles, then fine.

But when you are in the leadership position or this person is obstructing me in my pursuits, then its different. As Art_in_fl and Denis say, you can ask for cooperation and try and understand what is the reason behind the objection, sometimes the reasons behind an objection can be resolved, sometimes you can use that to persuade them to cooperate, or at least raise their objections with you and not disrupt an entire team.

… not to say I wouldn’t find a few of Sue’s suggestions agreeable … Perhaps we should all print out her list and add a few more to the bottom to blow off steam ?

Great subject we should never have enough discussion about

I was reminded of this thread by Denis in a similar thread about difficult personalities.

Oh, they come in all shapes and forms.

One time I was driving my new car and one of these difficult guys starts pressing all buttons BEFORE asking what they do . He started AC, he stopped AC, he started radio and continued to go all over the car, opening glove compartment and asking about this or that ( some of which were prepper stuff like multiple flashlights ... etc. ). You cannot tell him that he is a pain in the nack , nor can you drive easily in the traffic jam with a guy going all over and asking you all kinds of questions. This is just one example about his character.


Just as I was typing this, another difficult personlaity came and said Hi. OK, he started asking if I have seen this or that . I answered briefly that I spent my time doing other things. He decided that I shouldnt have missed it and picked up MY desk phone to call someone who knows which TV station or website that will give me "another chance" to see it. I FIRMLY told him that I don't want to see it. I am NOT interested. Plus he cannot even see that I am busy on the computer.

I find it interesting that all the comments assume that there must be a "leader". Guess it is the standard mindset of this part of the world. However there are groups without a leader. In fact much of the worlds smaller isolated groups operate by consensus. A concept almost entirely ignored in our society.

In short, it is a technique where everyone in the group decides on a course of action. The discussion continues until everyone agrees. Mostly folks in our world consider it impractical. "There is always a leader" they say. Or, it takes too long.

However in an isolated society, the group is interdependent and must include everyone. Consensus is a workable solution, just terribly foreign to our mindset.

There are a number of good consensus methods adapted to our mindset published on the net. See:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

It does take some "getting used to" if one is from a hierocratical world as most of us are. Actually it drove me nuts the fist time I experienced it. The talk went on forever...

But the eventual solution included everyone and tasks were then completed quickly.

Nomad

Was the total time required quicker than a more "top down" solution?

Depends entirely on the situation and the personalities involved. Sometimes a strong leader can just step in and be accepted, other times one or more people in the group will balk at a strong hand. Sometimes you can lead without anyone realizing you're the leader and that they are being led.

I've been in situations where a number of people on a committee each had their own idea. Any one of the options would have worked, and all the leader needed to do was pick one at random. Instead, nothing was resolved and we came away with no solution at all.


That would be the people in Marketing.

Not usually. And I doubt consensus would work well in our society. However, in a small to medium sized group that needs to function over a long term, it has many other benefits.

Primarily the inclusion of everyone in decisions. It keeps tensions from building and virtually eliminates the creation of a pecking order which can become so decisive. Which is why I brought it up in response to the original post.

Also, since everyone participates, they all know the reasoning behind the decision. This leads to more individualized action that supports the goal.

This leaderless process also is difficult to defeat. Since all understand the goal and have bought into it, there is no key individual (except for skills). Therefore if some are injured etc, the process continues.

The Rand Corp. did a study of consensus (also called mesh or web) decision group types and found that when the two methods (top down vs consensus) conflicted (warfare) the consensus group always won. This is what makes asymmetrical warfare so difficult.

Sorry about running on so, that is probably far more than you wanted to know.

Nomad

Nomad, you brought the thread to an interesting territory

I am interested in prepping
Also interested in public safety

From my own experience , and a seminar I heard lately, lots and lots of people are NOT concerned with safety , much less prepping. The speaker mentioned dwindling audience in their CPR and first aid mini-courses (which are free, BTW)

My thoughts are like this : when you talk of consensus , you need people thinking on the same wavelength. However, what I see around me is people who are nuts about sports (and almost nothing else), people who are nuts about politics, people who are nuts about money and doing anything (moral or not ) to get more money. Different groups with different narrow areas of focus

You may say, well, focus on one group at a time. So, sports people can get together ( without the politics type of people) and run a concensus. Well, sorry to say they are also divided as fans of this club or that. Ditto for the politics people. They spend times reading the papers and cusring this politician or that party. They do not seem to able to sit together and agree on anything constructive.

So, can you shed more light on how a community can come together and agree on anything ??? If they couldn't agree on teh imprtance of safety , CPR, and such ( which are offered free of charge ! ) how can they come to agree on anything else.

why do you use the term "bathtub people" ?

What can you say? The World is changing?

I dont get it either so we have to look within and like BIL said yesterday he preps (in the all inclusive sense of the word) because it might be needed,and if it isnt then all the better.And he does it as he see's fit,letting the World do as they see fit too.Then trying to work around them and not get steamrollered over by em.

Consensus,sheesh after the last election and what the locals voted for,I can see I have little in common with the pack. No groups for me!

Going to just have our own little pack I guess.

The term "bathtub people" comes from the article Art linked to in the original post: Bathtubs: A Theory of Community Relations


I agree that with a small group that consensus can work well. For example, this is pretty much how things get done by the leadership of our Cub pack; even though I am the section leader, most of the decisions are made by the group using something similar to the consensus model described (though in an informal way ... its just naturally how its worked out).

Just thinking out loud, but perhaps the key with the consensus model is ensuring your are only including the appropriate people at the appropriate times. Back to the example of my Cub pack, it works because we look for consensus within the leadership team, not within the pack as a whole. We solicit feedback and ideas from the kids, but they aren't involved in the final decision making processes.

Also, I think consensus has to be limited to a degree. I could definitely see issues arising if you try to micro manage with it. For example, the group could agree we should do a first aid course and who should run it, but then the group can let that person work out the details and trust them to deliver it.

All that said, I do think its important for the buck to stop somewhere; one person who will ultimately accept responsibility for the actions and decisions of the group. Because of this added responsibility, this person also needs to be granted the ability to set the bounds of what the group does, with consensus being used to work out the details.