Blog Viewer
Seconding a Motion DOESN'T Mean You Support It!!!
Created By: Herman, Marie On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 12:16 PM
This is a little fact I knew in the back of my mind, but I think most of us tend to forget it. When someone seconds a motion, it doesn't mean they AGREE with the motion nor does it mean they intend to vote for the motion. It simply means that they think the question should be put out there for discussion by the assembly.

I am a strong believer in this philosophy because I think it benefits everyone to discuss things and hear all sides to an issue. Most of the time, I generally go with what the majority wants, even if I don't happen to agree with their decision. Occasionally a subject is important enough to me to fight for change even if I am in the minority (that doesn't actually happen all that often though, surprisingly enough). However, the only way I will know what the majority wants, is if the question gets asked and discussed.

In the same way, I periodically raise questions on the forum, not because I have an opinion one way or the other (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't), but simply because I think the question should be discussed. Oftentimes I form my opinion after a question is discussed, since I learn new things from both sides while the discussion is being held. I especially am interested in learning about pros and cons of either side of the issue and possible solutions for resolving problems as well as understanding the overall process a group follows in arriving at a decision.

It's all too easy to get locked into how we have always done things, when no one stops to ask the question of WHY we do things a certain way, as well as Is there a better way to do things?

Sometimes the discussion ends up highlighting and reinforcing that we do things a certain way because it actually is indeed the best way. Other times the discussion ends up highlighting that nobody knows why we do things a certain way and nobody can give a reason why we wouldn't choose a better way other than, well we've never done it that way.

It's also interesting to me, from a human behavior point of view, how many people bring emotion into an argument of logic. I love a spirited debate. I don't always agree with my "opponents" but I absolutely love it when they give reasoned well thought out explanations for their opinions (because sometimes there is no real right or wrong answer).  I can't stand it when arguments degenerate into insults (because the arguer has no logic to stand on, so that is all that's left). But I adore those people who can delve into the philosophical discussions of why things should or should not be and then can expound upon the mundane trivial details of consequences that would result from possible changes or decisions.

Ultimately, that's what makes better decisions - by thinking through the pros and cons and solutions of all involved and regularly asking ourselves if we are doing things the best way possible.

Score 2.7/5
1Ratings
1Comments
115Views
Permalink

To link to this Blog, copy and paste the URL below into your blog or homepage. Using this link will ensure access to the Blog, even if it is archived.

Comment  
Rosemarie Martinez
3/16/2010
2:34 PM
You are absolutely right, Marie. In my experience attending meetings (whether as a leader or an expectator), we don't agree all the time. Objective points of view (with facts) are very important. Specially from new members or outsiders. Sometimes a simple question can be such an eye opener and outsiders (new employees, new tenants, new students, visitor, etc.) bring new perspective into the equation. There is no right or wrong answer.
As a communicator, I personally try to avoid confrontation or confrontational situations. First of all, not many people know about the Robert's Rule of Order or do not abide by that. Plain and simple, not everyone knows how to conduct effective meetings. It is often argued that good leaders are good listeners. But sometimes, in the interest of time, meetings have to be timed or otherwise they will go on forever. Effective meetings should be participatory but need structure. Some people like to monopolize the subjects and are eternal "complainers" . You are right about some people bring emotion into an argument. I am dissapointed when people get personal to each other, don't know much about the matter but they argue it anyways defending their only their points of view according to their interests/benefits or simply state discrimination against them because of their gender or nationality trying to gain support from the audience. When you get personal, you lose. Personal matters should be discussed in person not in public. In my opinion, these people have lower self-esteem and continually blame the situation on someone else. I concur with you that civilized discussions can be very fruitful even when we might not always agree with each other.
No Related Links
Copyright © 2009. All rights reserved.