Community Hygiene: Proactively Addressing Conflict

I have the great privilege to live with many people whom I care about who also care about me. We live in San Francisco and have named our home ‘The Lighthouse.’ We are a little into our second year and I’m pleased to see that we are just as, if not more, committed to the success of our home as a fulfilling place to live for ourselves and a rejuvenating place for others to visit.

I believe that there is a lot that makes our living situation interesting and successful. We buy and share communal groceries leveraging PayPal and Splitwise after initially tracking our individual spending for three months. We have group emotional processing time following the format of the Zegg Forum or more casually in Lean Coffee. In Zegg we gather and share what’s up for each of us right then. In Lean Coffee we propose things to discuss, vote on which gets priority and go through them one at a time using a voting system for adding time to each subject. We’ve made, and continually refine, a voting system for house changes, events, and general proposals that feels fair.

While we’ll likely get into all that some day on the blog, today I’d like to continue last weeks post about resentment and discuss how we might be able to deal with resentment proactively in community spaces.

When we first moved in we were basically taking four independent living situations and smashing them together. The area of greatest redundancy was our kitchen. We had three stand mixers, four blenders, tons of plates and bowls, beyond enough pots and pans, and much more. This redundancy led to a fair amount of contention over what to do with all of our stuff, what was worth keeping in the kitchen and what was banished to the garage. We had a lot of opinions on how the kitchen should be laid out, which dining sets to keep, how everything should be consolidated, what was worth keeping in the pantry, and on and on.

This was all happening before we had systems to voice concerns broadly, a process to vote on things in a way we all understood, or a sense of security in our own bedrooms which were all in a gradual state of unpacked.

We also hadn’t figured out what it was like to live together; how each of us moved through space, what we all liked doing chore-wise and what we hated, what was important for us to have a place feel like home, or to trust we all had each other actively in mind while we made decisions.

This past August we had several people come through and use our kitchen to make some hundred meals for a large Burning Man camp that many of our housemates camp with. The plan was to take a weekend plus a day or so to completely use the kitchen and surrounding spaces to mass produce meals, freeze them, and leave the kitchen in a better state than it was found.

This was met with a mix of enthusiasm, neutrality, concern and hard-nos. We listened to the concerns from blocking and near blocking housemates. We massaged the initial proposal and offloaded some of the work to other members of the camp. We eventually got down to a proposal that the majority of the house felt good or okay about. There were still some serious concerns held by some of the housemates but enough was agreed upon for them to no longer be blocking on the proposal.

The cooking occurred and surpassed expectations (at least mine, that’s for sure). Things were done ahead of schedule, less space was taken, and all used spaces were actually cleaner than they were before the cooking started.

A lot happened between the initial ask to use the kitchen for Burning Man camp prep and all the cooking being done. We had house discussions about concerns and procedures to make sure those concerns were alleviated. People had private conversations about the concerns that were being raised. Individual housemates paired off to find solutions for personal and logistical issues that were challenging for a few people to deal with. Some light drama in the form of gossip popped up here and there as well. After all the cooking was done and Burning Man had come and gone we called a meeting with everyone in attendance to do a logistical and emotional retrospective. Here we made sure everyone was on the same page about what had happened, how people felt about it now that it was done, and what we might be able to do better in the future.

Every time we have an episode of larger-than-normal conflict we make it out the other side saying, “we really need a way to keep everyone on the same page when a house-wide conflict is happening.” Even if progress is made by the people closest to the issue, people around them may still be in a state of unease because they don’t know things have changed.

Here’s a non-exhaustive list of things I’m considering and trying to solve for.

- The process is transferable to communities and groups that are not The Lighthouse

- The process helps prevent resentment from blooming or spreading especially after large asks (big parties, cooking hundreds of meals in 2 days for Burning Man, etc.)

- The process makes it clear to the people involved and those observing that the tension has passed or has some SMART next steps have been agreed upon.

- The process feels safe to engage in as someone who may feel alone in their dissatisfaction.

- There is a way to initiate the process that is fair and accessible

These are my current ideas.

Get as many people as possible to gather at the same time. Do so digitally if necessary. In person is best and most desirable. It’s better to do something sooner than to wait a month for everyone’s schedules to align. The group will have to figure out how to min-max this. The people most involved in the conflict ought to be present.

The discussion needs facilitation. This person will mediate the conversation. The people most involved in the conflict cannot act as a facilitator due to conflicts of interest. Ideally, someone neutral within the community can perform this role. If that’s not possible then consider bringing in someone from outside the group.

A conversation is held fishbowl style with an inner circle and an outer circle. The people involved in the conflict are inside the fishbowl along with the facilitator. Everyone else is seated around them and is not allowed to talk outside of a specified open question time. The people in conflict practice active listening, and share their issues back and forth. Meanwhile the facilitator keeps them on track, listens for underlying themes and unspoken feelings and brings those up when appropriate.

After the people inside the fishbowl have exhausted their concerns and questions the people sitting outside are given the opportunity to ask questions. These should be for clarification or curiosity. The facilitator can veto questions that are unfair or outside the scope of the conversation at hand. If there are any action items after the discussion those are voted upon by everyone present and documented afterwards.

Following this a new group can enter the circle for a new conversation or the gathering can close. In our home we have enjoyed closing meetings with five to eight minutes of popcorn appreciations for people in the house. I’d also suggest that people do not talk about what was discussed in the gathering for at least an hour. Let it settle in, let people settle down. Whenever people want to talk after that I’d encourage people to ask if it’s okay to talk instead of just diving in.

The last two points are the ones I struggle with the most; making the process feel safe to initiate and helping someone raise their voice when they may feel alone in their discontent.

There’s a catch-22 about trust. It may be difficult to be vulnerable with someone you do not trust. Poetically, being vulnerable with others is the fastest way to build trust. To enter any space that’s designed for airing grievances and working through tough spots all parties must be willing to share openly and the foundation for doing so is trust. Building trust is a huge subject (for another time). If there is hesitation to start a process like this I would encourage you to write down all your concerns and see if there’s anything that can be done for any of them, no matter how small a step.

Lastly, for how to initiate, I think this should be a regularly scheduled thing that happens on it’s own. The first Sunday morning of each month; something like that. Don’t leave it up to people building the courage to ask for this to happen. Just assume it’s going to happen, gather, and if no one has anything to toss into the circle then go about your days. In between each gathering use a community communication channel (Slack, FB, email, w/e) to propose topics ahead of time and have people vote on which ones get priority.

That’s it.

The Lighthouse hasn’t actually done this yet. I’ve shared the concept with some of my housemates and they are on board. I’ll report back in the future with modifications and other approaches.

Please, seriously, comment on the FB thread for this post or email me with thoughts, ideas and resources for approaching and resolving community disputes. Communities work best when everyone is in it to win it. Throw in your two cents.

---

Summary

- Leading up to the date that everyone gathers, people propose subjects to cover in the circle.

- Everyone gathers on the agreed upon date. - Everyone forms a large circle.

- The first group enters the circle consisting of the people closest to the conflict and a neutral facilitator.

- The people in the circle talk it out, reflect what they are hearing to each other, and stay on topic.

- The outer circle only listens until the end where they are given space for questions.

- Action items are agreed upon by the whole group.

- The inner circle joins the outer circle and a new group enters.

- Repeat until time or all issues are aired.

- Optional popcorn appreciations. - Do not talk about the content of the gathering for at least an hour.