wiki content export 2026-04-30
This commit is contained in:
Wiki Bot
parent
5842865c1a
commit
3a98d0b8f0
11 changed files with 28 additions and 50 deletions
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: 'Session 0: Kickoff + Onboarding'
|
||||
collection: Cooperative Foundations
|
||||
path: 'Cooperative Foundations/Session Content/Session 0: Kickoff + Onboarding'
|
||||
parentDocument: Session Content
|
||||
outlineId: 4473dfe4-b06a-406c-98a6-6bba510cb162
|
||||
createdBy: Jennie R.F.
|
||||
---
|
||||
> **Peer Supports:** See [PS Guide: Session 0 — Kickoff + Onboarding](/doc/ps-guide-session-0-kickoff-onboarding-HzswkItl8f) for your role during session and this week's studio support meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## ==Welcome==
|
||||
|
||||
* Tag Yourself activity
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Intro - 2 min
|
||||
|
||||
Session 0 orients us to the shared work ahead. This opening session grounds participants in the purpose and structure of the program while setting the tone for a peer-driven, care-centred space.
|
||||
|
||||
We'll begin building the relational trust and shared accountability that will carry us through the following 8 sessions. We'll reflect on our own privileges and lived experiences. By the end of this session, we'll have a shared understanding of how we'll learn together. This is the beginning of practicing cooperation together.
|
||||
|
||||
> "The most important thing is if there's **trust** between the people in the group because that's what carries it through." - Russ Christianson
|
||||
|
||||
> "every collective starts with a feeling" - Brewing Collectives — [a cool website from some perma-computing people.](https://brewing.permacomputing.net)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Agenda
|
||||
|
||||
### Welcome, land acknowledgement, values - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
* Quick round: name, pronouns, location, why you're here
|
||||
|
||||
Acknowledge land and virtual space, and share our values
|
||||
|
||||
* * We acknowledge and thank all those who have struggled for workers' rights and racial, economic, and environmental rights and emancipation
|
||||
* We are recording this session for team members who can't attend
|
||||
* Please post questions as we go in the chat
|
||||
* Opportunity to ask more questions during Q&A at end
|
||||
* If you have any access needs, put it in the chat or DM @jennie or @eileen
|
||||
* See: [Accessibility Supports Available to Participants](/doc/fe4225c8-d8d2-48ed-873e-0eca72b611b6)
|
||||
|
||||
### Studio Pairings - 5 mins
|
||||
|
||||
* Show which teams they're in
|
||||
|
||||
### Peer Support team intros - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
* Who is paired with who
|
||||
* What Peer Support sessions look like
|
||||
|
||||
### Participant intros - 15 min (3 mins each)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Each team says hello - have one person talk for the team and the others chime in the chat with:
|
||||
* name, pronouns, location
|
||||
2. Tell us about your game - *briefly*
|
||||
* can share pictures in the chat if you want
|
||||
3. Biggest studio pain point *right now*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ==Where you are: The co-op development journey - 10 min==
|
||||
|
||||
First, let's look at the statistics:
|
||||
|
||||
* Small business startup success rate: \~20% (8 in 10 fail)
|
||||
* Cooperative startup success rate: \~40% (6 in 10 fail)
|
||||
* Co-ops significantly outperform conventional startups – but it's still not a guarantee
|
||||
|
||||
**You're still going against the odds. But it's a worthwhile thing to do, because cooperative principles and practices will enrich your life and your relationships.**
|
||||
|
||||
Being a co-op improves your odds, it doesn't eliminate risk.
|
||||
|
||||
This program focuses on **pre-formation** - the relational and governance groundwork that determines whether your co-op will thrive or struggle.
|
||||
|
||||
Most resources out there focus on the legal and operational stuff: how to incorporate, how to file paperwork, how to structure bylaws. Of course that's important! But it's not where studios fail.
|
||||
|
||||
Studios fail because of unspoken assumptions about money, time, and commitment; wishy-washy and undocumented governance; conflict avoidance; unexamined power dynamics
|
||||
|
||||
This program exists to build the foundation *before* you incorporate. By the end of this program, you'll have shared values that you know how to put into action. We'll walk you through designing and practicing cooperative governance structures. You'll know how to decide *how to decide*! and we'll test low-stakes decisions. And you'll have drafted conflict tools ready for when (NOT IF!) tensions arise.
|
||||
|
||||
**You are here:** Pre-formation and building your relational infrastructure
|
||||
|
||||
**==Coop Journey Map ==***==(visual showing: pre-formation to formation to operation)==*
|
||||
|
||||
**What comes after:** Incorporation support, ongoing community (Ghost Guild), and continued learning. We'll talk about pathways in Session 8.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ==Program overview - 10 min==
|
||||
|
||||
#### Program schedule, session themes, and format
|
||||
|
||||
We have 8 sessions (not including today)
|
||||
|
||||
* **Coop Principles and Power:** We go over the principles adopted in 1995 by the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA), which now form the ethical foundation for cooperative work — and then talk about how we can turn those principles in into *values*.
|
||||
* **Speed Networking:** A chance to interact and chat more with your fellow cohort members in a fun way.
|
||||
* **Studio 1&1s:** coordinators will have two studio 1:1s with you. This is a chance to share how you're doing directly with us, so that we can make adaptations or accommodations to support your team.
|
||||
* **Shared purpose and Alignment:** We confront the fast pace that the industry sets for us and how we can challenge that. How do we find true alignment as a team without that pressure?
|
||||
* **Actionable values and impact:** You're going to get sick of us saying the word "values." In those first two sessions, we cover *why* cooperatives matter to game developers who are challenging toxic industry norms, *what* we want to build through shared purpose and values, and in this session we will dive into the *how*: The day-to-day tools you need to make democratic work... work! How do you take your intended impact and make it actionable?!
|
||||
* **Game Night:** We'll play a game together, yay!
|
||||
* **Coop Structures and governance:** This session introduces governance models you can start using immediately.
|
||||
* **Mid-program showcase:** A chance to share what you've been working on an celebrate alongside one another.
|
||||
* **Decision-making in practice:** We talk about how you make decisions, who has a voice, how you handle disagreement — all the things that will shape what kind of co-op you become. We offer some tools to help with decision-making.
|
||||
* **Equitable economics:** This workshop is on everything financial and how we make money transparent and ethical.
|
||||
* **Conflict resolution & collective care:** We've been taught that conflict is to be avoided and that ultimately, it means failure. But in healthy cooperatives, disagreement (like feedback!) is valuable data - it tells us that there's an opportunity for us to create something better for everyone.
|
||||
* **Self-evaluation & pathways:** This week, we we pause to reflect on what you've built, and where you're headed. We have two assessments: individual and studio. These will help you see how far you've come, and clarify your next steps beyond the program. And then we celebrate!
|
||||
* **Wrap-up Celebration:** A chance to have fun, say goodbye, celebrate our wins.
|
||||
* Plus your weekly Studio Support Meetings
|
||||
|
||||
#### How to participate
|
||||
|
||||
* Gamma Space / Slack explanation
|
||||
* Slack structure: main channel(s), cohort channels, project channels, random and other general channels
|
||||
* Expectations for engagement (Slack reflections, homework, participation)
|
||||
* How to participate
|
||||
* How to book with us
|
||||
* Review accessibility practices (captions, breakout choices, asynchronous options)
|
||||
|
||||
*Note: Much of this info will also live in a Slack Canvas for reference.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Commitment and permission - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
Let's talk about what commitment actually means in this program.
|
||||
|
||||
Time - About 2-5 hours per week (sessions + homework + Studio Support meetings). Some weeks will be heavier. If you can't make a session, let us know - recordings are available, but live participation is really important.
|
||||
|
||||
Openness - This work asks you to be vulnerable with your collaborators: To say what you actually think, to hear things you might not want to hear - this will take energy and might be unfamiliar. Give it your best shot.
|
||||
|
||||
Money - You're receiving a grant as part of this program. That comes with accountability - to yourself, your studio, and the cohort.
|
||||
|
||||
Purpose - Why does your studio need to be a co-op? Not "why are co-ops good" but what specific problem does working cooperatively solve for you that you couldn't solve another way?
|
||||
|
||||
You have permission to leave early - If you realize partway through that this isn't the right time, or this isn't the right team, or you need to step back - that's okay. It's better to face that than to go through the motions. We'd rather you make an honest choice for yourself.
|
||||
|
||||
Leaving isn't failure. *Sometimes it's the most cooperative thing you can do.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
This program will give you tools to notice when informal hierarchy forms, have hard conversations about money, power, and expectations, make decisions collectively, and navigate conflict as valuable data. It will NOT make you hierarchy-free, tell you exactly how to structure your co-op, eliminate disagreement, or do the hard conversations for you. *We're here to support you, but the work is yours.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ==Friction is part of the work - 5 min==
|
||||
|
||||
Before we build our community agreements, we want to chat about something that has come up in every previous cohort.
|
||||
|
||||
This program will ask you to have hard conversations - about money, about power, about what you actually want from this collaboration. Some of those conversations will be *uncomfortable*. You might discover that your group is less aligned on values than you assumed. You might have disagreements you've never had before. Someone might go radio silent, and someone might get defensive.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
* "I've been doing most of the work and I'm starting to resent it."
|
||||
* "We said we'd share decisions equally, but one person always gets the final word."
|
||||
* "I thought we agreed on this, but I actually don't think I had a real say."
|
||||
* "I can only commit 10 hours a week and you're working 40 - how do we make that fair?"
|
||||
* "I want to leave the studio."
|
||||
|
||||
This is normal. This is the work!
|
||||
|
||||
We bring these questions up to normalize friction. And because unspoken assumptions are where studios fall apart. The friction you feel now, when the stakes are low and you have support, is infinitely better than discovering it later when you're under deadline pressure or financial strain.
|
||||
|
||||
A few things to reframe…
|
||||
|
||||
* Discomfort often means something important is coming up.
|
||||
* Disagreement tells you something isn't clear and gives you an opportunity to include more people.
|
||||
* If everything feels easy, you might not be going deep enough.
|
||||
|
||||
We're here to support you through the hard parts - that's what Peer Supports are for. But we can't do the hard conversations for you.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Community agreements - 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
Now let's start to create the building blocks for shared agreements for how we'll be together in this program.
|
||||
|
||||
Why? We are identifying what we **need** and **commit** to each other in this space. This supports our working cooperatively as a cohort! Everyone here will participate, including Peer Supports.
|
||||
|
||||
We're going to do two things. First, we'll look at some draft agreements together and react to them. Then you'll spend some time on your own adding context and reflections that will help us build better agreements over the coming weeks.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Step 1 - Trust (together, 5 min)
|
||||
|
||||
Walk through the pre-loaded agreement stickies. People react with emojis, add new ones if they want. These are phrased as agreements already so let them do that work.
|
||||
|
||||
*These are written as things we can hold each other to. If you add one, try to phrase it the same way.*
|
||||
|
||||
#### Step 2 - Context sections (self-directed, 7 min, music on)
|
||||
|
||||
*The rest of the board is reflection space. These aren't agreements yet. They're the ideas and values we'll build on. Move through at your own pace and add stickies wherever something comes up for you.*
|
||||
|
||||
#### Step 3 - Pull back (together, 2 min, music off)
|
||||
|
||||
Ask people to read what's there.
|
||||
|
||||
*We'll come back to all of this. Some of what you wrote today will turn into agreements later. Some of it will stay as context that shapes how we work together.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Activity: Power Flower overview - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Your first piece of individual work is a reflection on your own power and privilege using a tool called the Power Flower. The template has been added to your studio boards, so you can copy it out of there into your own private board or document.
|
||||
|
||||
This is a tool for thinking about identity and power. Each petal represents an identity category and has two layers:
|
||||
|
||||
* Inner petal (closer to the centre): the identity group that holds the most structural power in Canadian society. These are pre-filled for you.
|
||||
* Outer petal: your identity. You fill this in.
|
||||
|
||||
The categories are: race, ethnicity, religion/faith, gender, age, sexual orientation, language, disability/ability, social class, immigration/citizenship status, plus two blank petals you can define yourself (examples: industry experience, body size, housing status, education, neurodivergence).
|
||||
|
||||
When your outer petal matches the inner petal, you hold a dominant identity in that category. When it doesn't, you hold a marginalized identity. Most people have a mix of both.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Instructions:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Look at each petal. The inner petals are already filled in with the dominant group identity.
|
||||
2. In the outer petal, write the language you'd use to describe yourself in that category. Use whatever feels right. "Unsure" and "questioning" are okay.
|
||||
3. Fill in the blank petals if you want to, or leave them blank.
|
||||
4. When you're done, look at your flower as a whole. Notice where your outer petals match the inner petals and where they don't.
|
||||
|
||||
Why we're doing this: you're going to build a cooperative with other people. Every person in your studio carries a mix of identities - some dominant, some marginalized. Those identities shape who speaks first in meetings, whose ideas become the default, who feels safe raising a concern, and who doesn't. Cooperatives don't erase power dynamics. They give you tools to notice them and decide together what to do about them.
|
||||
|
||||
Reflection on the questions listed after you've filled it out - no need to write your answers or share with anyone, just think.
|
||||
|
||||
This is private and for your own reflection. Baby Ghosts won't see it. Your studio won't see it unless you choose to share. We'll use it as a jumping-off point in Session 1.
|
||||
|
||||
Complete this in your private Miro board before Session 1.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ==Closing - 5 min==
|
||||
|
||||
* Each person shares one intention or hope for the program
|
||||
* Reminders: next session prep, Slack channels to check, Power Flower homework
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Homework
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Complete your Power Flower** – Use the template in your private Miro board. Reflect on the identities, experiences, and forms of power you bring into this space. This is just for you – we'll use it as a jumping-off point in Session 1.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,287 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: 'Session 1: Coop Principles and Power'
|
||||
collection: Cooperative Foundations
|
||||
path: 'Cooperative Foundations/Session Content/Session 1: Coop Principles and Power'
|
||||
parentDocument: Session Content
|
||||
outlineId: 036d9fc6-27c0-410b-b570-6bf4d5fac80e
|
||||
createdBy: Jennie R.F.
|
||||
---
|
||||
> **Peer Supports:** See [Session 1: Coop Principles and Power](/doc/c6a0ee07-8c24-41f3-9975-e54955e84b5c) for your role during session and this week's studio support meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
## Welcome
|
||||
|
||||
* Slide: Tag Yourself activity
|
||||
* Slide: Anonymous feedback form reminder
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Intro - 3 min
|
||||
|
||||
Working in an environment that focuses solely on shipping, profit, and growth denies us the opportunity to practice our values collectively. Worse, the outcome of those capitalist values is exploitation and dehumanization of everyone but whoever is at the top of the org chart. How can we connect with our deepest-held values to shape collective practices that challenge this harmful hierarchy?
|
||||
|
||||
We have some guidance to start with: The principles adopted in 1995 by the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA), which now form the ethical foundation for cooperative work around the world and are deeply reflected in cooperative history and practice in the Global South. We'll trace a line from these principles to your personal and shared values, and then to what cooperative practice can look like in your context.
|
||||
|
||||
Through this work, we can create a culture that stands up to extraction and burnout, and practice something different in its place.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Agenda
|
||||
|
||||
Today we'll be talking about:
|
||||
|
||||
* How to cooperate (cooperative capacities)
|
||||
* Coop histories/lineages
|
||||
* The ICA cooperative principles
|
||||
* How to move from the principles to values
|
||||
|
||||
### Check-in - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
*Thinking back on the Power Flower reflection you did...*
|
||||
|
||||
* what's one thing you noticed about yourself that you hadn't named before?
|
||||
* no need to share details, unless you are compelled! Just notice what came up
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Cooperation is a skill, not a trait - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
We've been socially and economically shaped by systems that reward competition, individual achievement, and hierarchy. Most of us were just never taught *how* to cooperate.
|
||||
|
||||
> "Most human beings have a natural propensity \[pro-PEN-suh-tee\] to cooperate." -- Russ Christianson (Christian - son), *Effective Practices in Starting Co-ops*
|
||||
|
||||
The capacity exists. We already practice solidarity economics in daily life without calling it that when we contribute to a GoFundMe or babysit our neighbour's kids. But these practices get buried under what Black economist Jessica Gordon Nembhard calls "the assumptions of neo-liberal capitalist ideology."
|
||||
|
||||
Can cooperation be recovered and practiced until it's reliable?
|
||||
|
||||
That's what this program is for. We're not here to convince you cooperation is good. Pretty sure you already know that. We're here to build the muscle and to practice until cooperative decision-making becomes your default.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### The skills of cooperation - 7 min
|
||||
|
||||
So what does "cooperation is a skill" actually mean? *What* are the skills?
|
||||
|
||||
We're going to introduce tools throughout this program, but tools only work if you have the *underlying capacities* to use them. A consensus process doesn't help if no one can sit with discomfort long enough to hear a dissenting view.
|
||||
|
||||
Here's what we'll be practicing:
|
||||
|
||||
**Active listening**\nThis means unlearning the tendency to simply wait for your turn to talk. It means actually focusing on the other person and trying to understand what they really mean, especially when you disagree. One practice to support this is reflecting back what you hear. You can also take notes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Honest communication**\nWithout making accusations, say what you actually think, and use "I" statements. The purpose is to open conversation up wider.
|
||||
|
||||
**Perspective-taking**\nYour collaborators experience situations differently from you, and from each other. Try to put yourself in their position/mindset and hear what they are telling you about what they are feeling.
|
||||
|
||||
**Emotional self-regulation**\nIt can be difficult, without prior practice, to stay present when things get uncomfortable instead of shutting down, lashing out, or agreeing just to make the tension stop. Notice discomfort and choose how to respond rather than just reacting.
|
||||
|
||||
**Self-awareness about your patterns in groups**\nDo you talk first? Go quiet when you disagree? Say yes to avoid tension? Take over tasks because it's faster than explaining? Notice your ingrained habits!
|
||||
|
||||
**Giving and receiving feedback** This is a tough one for a lot of people. When you have a concern, do you hedge so much it disappears? And when you hear critical feedback, do you get defensive or collapse? Both directions are skills. Look at feedback as a *gift*.
|
||||
|
||||
None of these are natural talents, but all of them can be practiced. In fact, you'll be practicing them throughout this program, starting next session!
|
||||
|
||||
*Sources: Munro, "United we stand: fostering cohesion in activist groups," Interface 13(1), 2021*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Cooperative lineages – and whose knowledge gets credited - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
The foundational principles of cooperatives are rooted in survival. But the Rochdale Pioneers of 1844, often credited as cooperative "founders," didn't invent cooperation – they simply codified practices that had existed for millennia. We'll cover those principles in a minute, but first let's talk about the longer lineages of cooperative history.
|
||||
|
||||
* Indigenous communities worldwide practiced mutual aid, collective resource management, and consensus decision-making long before European contact. Many Indigenous governance systems also held space for Two-Spirit people in leadership and decision-making roles.
|
||||
* Enslaved and formerly enslaved Black communities in the Americas created mutual aid societies, burial societies, and informal credit systems out of necessity and survival
|
||||
* Women formed cooperative childcare networks, domestic worker collectives, and community support systems -- often invisible and uncredited
|
||||
* Immigrant communities built cooperative stores, housing, and financial institutions when mainstream systems excluded them
|
||||
* Queer and trans communities built mutual aid networks, collective housing, and care systems - often out of crisis. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera's STAR (Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries) in 1970s New York provided communal shelter, food, and support for unhoused trans youth of colour, organized entirely on principles of shared responsibility and collective care
|
||||
* During the AIDS crisis, queer communities created cooperative care networks, buyers' clubs to share medication, and mutual aid funds when governments and institutions abandoned them
|
||||
|
||||
*The Combahee River Collective - Black lesbian feminists organizing in the 1970s - articulated what we now call intersectionality. Cooperative movements have always been strongest when they refuse to separate one axis of liberation from another*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The Rochdale Pioneers formalized these practices into a movement. But when we credit them as "founders," we invisibilize the communities who developed and sustained cooperative practices for generations under conditions of oppression.
|
||||
|
||||
*Source: Locating the Contributions of the African Diaspora in the Canadian Co-operative Sector \[WIKILINK-01: needs URL\] Additional info:* [*Indigenous Governance and Tomorrow's Democracy*](https://www.colorado.edu/lab/medlab/2025/07/28/indigenous-governance-and-tomorrows-democracy-join-conversation)
|
||||
|
||||
This matters for us because you may already hold cooperative knowledge. It could be in your family, your culture, your community.
|
||||
|
||||
Consider your own "cooperative lineage":
|
||||
|
||||
* Did you grow up with childcare swaps, community gardens, or potlucks?
|
||||
* How did your family handle resources when money was tight? Who did they turn to?
|
||||
* What decision-making traditions come from your culture?
|
||||
* Have you been part of a band or community organization that shared resources or made decisions collectively?
|
||||
|
||||
Or:
|
||||
|
||||
* Why did you become interested in forming a cooperative?
|
||||
|
||||
Most of these practices go unnamed as "cooperative" but they are part of a long, global, grassroots, and informal tradition.
|
||||
|
||||
There are many types of cooperatives (coop housing, community land trusts, community financing like credit unions, worker cooperatives like you're trying to build) – but also barter clubs, fair trade, solidarity markets.
|
||||
|
||||
\n 
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperatives are expansive and we can add skills to your toolkit!
|
||||
|
||||
Share one cooperative practice from your experience in the chat. *And pay attention to what values are present.*
|
||||
|
||||
### Small groups -- mixed studios (3-4 people) - 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
* Share your cooperative lineage story
|
||||
* What values were present in that experience?
|
||||
* Each group identifies 3-5 values they heard across their stories
|
||||
* What need brought your studio together? What were you each missing that cooperation addresses?
|
||||
|
||||
Brief large group share - 5 min: Each group shares 1-2 values they identified.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The 7 Cooperative Principles - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
The values you just named have been recognized and formalized by cooperative movements worldwide. In 1995, the International Cooperative Alliance adopted these 7 principles that now guide cooperative work globally.
|
||||
|
||||
*For each principle, consider: How might your co-op incorporate this principle? What policies or practices would bring it to life?*
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Voluntary and Open Membership
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperatives are voluntary organizations, open to anyone able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Democratic Member Control
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Your board of directors is accountable to the membership. Each member has one vote.
|
||||
|
||||
* *How will the co-op balance this with the reasonable interests of different classes of members?*
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Member Economic Participation
|
||||
|
||||
Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their cooperative.
|
||||
|
||||
* *Consider the share values, annual fees, fees-for-services, and other financial commitments that members will have to meet.*
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Autonomy and Independence
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their cooperative autonomy.
|
||||
|
||||
* *What policies are needed around contracts, hiring contractors, accepting donations, or taking investment?*
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Education, Training, and Information
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their cooperatives.
|
||||
|
||||
* *What education is needed about the rights and responsibilities of membership? About other topics related to your coop's activities?*
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Cooperation Among Cooperatives
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional, and international structures.
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Concern for Community
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.
|
||||
|
||||
Summary source: *A People-Centred Path for a Second Cooperative Decade* \[WIKILINK-02: needs URL\] - ICA 2020
|
||||
|
||||
Nobody carved the 7 Principles into stone tablets and carried them down the mountain. The ICA has revised the principles three times - in 1937, 1966, and 1995 - because cooperative practice changes. You don't have to follow the rules perfectly to be a coop. But hold on to the core: democratic control, shared ownership, and surplus flowing to workers based on their labour. Everything else can be adapted to your studio's capacity and interests.
|
||||
|
||||
### The values beneath the principles
|
||||
|
||||
The principles give us structure. The values give us *why*. The International Cooperative Alliance summarizes it this way:
|
||||
|
||||
*"Cooperatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others."*
|
||||
|
||||
These are commitments to how we treat each other.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## From principles to your values - 3 min
|
||||
|
||||
What values guide *your* work or collective efforts?
|
||||
|
||||
Values are *beliefs* that motivate us to *act* one way or another. They guide our behaviour.
|
||||
|
||||
We each adopt values from a combination of our upbringing, the communities we are part of, the dominant culture, and other influences in our lives. Just like an individual's values guide how that person acts, organizational values guide how the *group* acts and makes decisions collectively.
|
||||
|
||||
Values also define scope and ethical constraints.
|
||||
|
||||
[Sociocracy 3.0: Agree on Values](https://patterns.sociocracy30.org/agree-on-values.html)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### How do we collaborate when we mean different things? - 2 min
|
||||
|
||||
Words are vague, communication is fraught, and we're all coming in from different backgrounds. The best thing we can do to support the cooperative principles of collaboration is to try and find common ground.
|
||||
|
||||
Where do we meet each other? And how do we build from there?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Takeaway Exercises - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Journal about your values** – What values guide your work or collective efforts? Your values can be discovered through observation. Your task isn't to decide what matters to you, but to notice what already does.
|
||||
* What holds your attention without effort?
|
||||
* What do you find yourself doing when no one is watching?
|
||||
* What topics consistently generate strong emotional responses?
|
||||
* When have you felt most alive or fulfilled?
|
||||
2. **Do the team values map with your Peer Supports** – Use your PS session to do the values mapping exercise as a team. Where do you align? Where do you differ?
|
||||
3. **Prep individually for "The Talk" (Session 2)** – Next session, you'll practice having direct conversations about money, time, skills, and decision-making with your collaborators. Reflect on these questions – **write your answers down** before we meet. Try to time-box to about 5 minutes per section.
|
||||
|
||||
**Financial reality:**
|
||||
* How much do you need to make monthly to participate in this studio?
|
||||
* What's your current financial capacity to contribute?
|
||||
* How important is immediate income vs. long-term equity?
|
||||
|
||||
**Time and availability:**
|
||||
* What's your actual time availability per week?
|
||||
* What are your non-negotiable boundaries?
|
||||
* How do you handle competing priorities?
|
||||
|
||||
**Skills and contributions:**
|
||||
* What do you excel at vs. what drains you?
|
||||
* Where do you want to grow vs. where you're already expert?
|
||||
* How do you prefer to contribute when you're overwhelmed?
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision-making styles:**
|
||||
* How do you prefer to make decisions under pressure?
|
||||
* When do you need more information vs. when do you trust your gut?
|
||||
* How do you handle disagreement?
|
||||
|
||||
And finally: **Does being part of this studio make you feel something? What is that feeling?**
|
||||
|
||||
Adapted from Obvious Agency's "The Talk" worksheet.
|
||||
|
||||
*These are for **you** first. You'll share with your team in Session 2.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
We've identified values that guide us individually and found connections to cooperative principles. But now comes the hard part: How do we actually *practice* these values together?
|
||||
|
||||
It might seem easy and fun to chat about these ideas with your collaborators, but until you are in conflict, or under financial or deadline pressure, you don't really know how everyone will hold on to those values.
|
||||
|
||||
Studios built around a shared problem - "we can't afford to make games alone," "we refuse to work in exploitative conditions again" - tend to hold together under that pressure. Studios built around a shared *aesthetic* preference for cooperation sometimes don't. Try to notice which one is yours.
|
||||
|
||||
The industry tells us to brute force our way through these situations – with the boss ultimately "resolving" the issue the way they want, probably guided by "move fast and figure it out later." But cooperative work requires something different. What Indigenous organizer Ruth Łchav'aya K'isen Miller calls "patience for the pace of trust."
|
||||
|
||||
Next session, we'll explore what it actually takes to align with collaborators beyond just sharing values on a Miro board. Even the closest friends can discover they have very different expectations about work, money, and decision-making when those conversations inevitably come up.
|
||||
|
||||
Use your Peer Support session this week to start talking about your values as a team.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: 'Session 2: Shared Purpose and Alignment'
|
||||
collection: Cooperative Foundations
|
||||
path: >-
|
||||
Cooperative Foundations/Session Content/Session 2: Shared Purpose and
|
||||
Alignment
|
||||
parentDocument: Session Content
|
||||
outlineId: 3a5e4514-f27b-4c95-8502-189116d30093
|
||||
createdBy: Jennie R.F.
|
||||
---
|
||||
> **Peer Supports:** See [PS Guide: Session 2 — Shared Purpose and Alignment](/doc/ps-guide-session-2-shared-purpose-and-alignment-QIfXEL8Kf3) for your role during session and this week's studio support meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
## Welcome - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
* Slide: Tag Yourself
|
||||
* Slide review: What we've learned so far
|
||||
* we've learned the history of cooperatives, the principles, and how we each know these practices from our own lineages
|
||||
* we've identified our personal values and started mapping them as teams
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Intro - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
"Patience for the pace of trust."
|
||||
|
||||
* Ruth Łchav'aya K'isen (**SHIV-ah-ya KISS-en)** Miller (Dena'ina Athabaskan, Curyung Tribe), co-founder of Smokehouse Collective
|
||||
|
||||
*Ruth Łchav'aya K'isen Miller, "*[*An Alaska Native mutual aid network tackles the climate crisis*](https://www.hcn.org/issues/56-1/food-an-alaska-native-mutual-aid-network-tackles-the-climate-crisis/)*," High Country News, 2024.*
|
||||
|
||||
*via Burton, Antoinette.* [*"Moving at the Speed of Trust"? Course Correction Needed*](https://visiblemagazine.com/moving-at-the-speed-of-trust-course-correction-needed/)\n*VISIBLE Magazine, 5 Dec. 2024*
|
||||
|
||||
There is no set pace or speed at which this work should happen. Resisting external time pressures can cost opportunities or just make you feel an anxious sense of FOMO. But taking the time to move in concert with your collaborators, building shared understanding and purpose, will set the foundation for work that lasts and relationships that can hold complexity.
|
||||
|
||||
The industry normalizes crunch, exploitation, and toxic competition as "just how games are made." These practices are in perfect opposition to those that ensure the stability and long-term sustainability of a studio. They are also the main failure point of the industry, destroying amazing teams and causing a ripple effect of harm. (Bioware)
|
||||
|
||||
Many indies assume that because they are friends (or share political values) that they'll naturally work well together. But being pals and being aligned politically does not mean you share **work** values, **decision-making** styles, or **financial** expectations. Without putting intentional time and effort into alignment, even the closest relationships can crumble when those difficult conversations inevitably come up.
|
||||
|
||||
In a cooperative, instead of a boss solving problems through their authority, democracy becomes everyone's responsibility. Liberating? Terrifying? Yes. Why? Because *most of us were never taught the skills required to work collectively.*
|
||||
|
||||
This session will focus on moving slowly and with intention to create the conditions where disagreement can arise *without destruction*. We will look at some practical skills to guide conversations you might have with your actual collaborators.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Agenda
|
||||
|
||||
### Check-in - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Two prompts:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. *from your team's values mapping activity: what's one thing you learned about where your team aligns or diverges*
|
||||
2. *what's one assumption you've made about working with others that turned out to be wrong?*
|
||||
|
||||
Share in the chat or unmute if you're comfortable.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### The alignment challenge - 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
We often assume we know the main goals for our projects, or think we have common language to describe scale and pace. We don't realize we may not be equally committed, or that we have different boundaries.
|
||||
|
||||
A big red flag is this attitude: "We're all friends, we never fight, we'll just figure it out as we go." More than friendship is required to set a foundation of true trust and solidarity in a cooperative. We have seen more studios fail due to interpersonal/values conflicts than lack of funding or creative/technical issues.
|
||||
|
||||
Once you start to do this work, you may realize you are not as aligned as you thought you were, and that's okay! However, try to examine why there is disagreement or how organizational power may be playing a role.
|
||||
|
||||
* In traditional studios, **the boss decides** when there's disagreement.
|
||||
* In cooperatives, unresolved misalignment can become **paralysis**.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Common pitfalls
|
||||
|
||||
* "We all just want to make good games" - don't we all! Too vague.
|
||||
* assuming shared politics = shared work values (activism != cooperative governance)
|
||||
* rushing past uncomfortable conversations like money and centralized power
|
||||
* defaulting to traditional studio roles
|
||||
|
||||
#### Creating safety for hard conversations
|
||||
|
||||
* not everyone needs identical commitment levels - **you can all be different!!**
|
||||
* better to get conflicts out in the open early than let them fester, even if it feels scary (make a space where people are comfortable to have a difficult conversation) - RA anecdote
|
||||
* focus on systems
|
||||
|
||||
#### Alignment does not equal agreement
|
||||
|
||||
**Alignment** - Shared understanding of direction, *even with different motivations*
|
||||
|
||||
**False consensus** - Agreeing to avoid conflict (recipe for resentment) TIP revisit convos to check in or take notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Healthy disagreement** - Different perspectives within shared values framework
|
||||
|
||||
Today we'll practice three core conversations…
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
:::info
|
||||
Who in your studio currently holds the maintenance work - the emails, the scheduling, remembering deadlines, checking in on people? Is that recognized? Is it shared?
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Activity: "The Talk" - 30 min
|
||||
|
||||
*Adapted from "The Talk: A Tool for Putting Values and Real Lives at the Forefront of Work" by Deen Rawlins (Obvious Agency), with modifications by Daniel Park*
|
||||
|
||||
In your studio channels, with your Peer Support, practice these conversations.
|
||||
|
||||
### Facilitation setup
|
||||
|
||||
You've each thought about these questions individually (Session 1 homework). Now you're sharing with your team. You'll keep picking up these threads in your Peer Support meetings.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
> You'll be reading from the answers you wrote down for Session 1 homework. One or two sentences per question. If you wrote more, summarize.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
* When someone is speaking, listen. Hold responses until discussion time.
|
||||
* There are no wrong answers
|
||||
* Don't try to avoid discomfort. That's the good stuff.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**Format for each round:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Each person answers in turn (1 minute each)
|
||||
* Use the Miro timer
|
||||
* If you run over, your Peer Supports will cue you to wrap so we can get to the open discussion.
|
||||
* After everyone answers, brief open discussion
|
||||
* Then move to next round
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Round 1: Financial reality - 6 min
|
||||
|
||||
* How much do you need to make monthly to participate?
|
||||
* What's your current financial capacity to contribute?
|
||||
* How important is immediate income vs. long-term equity?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Round 2: Time & availability - 6 min
|
||||
|
||||
* What's your actual time availability?
|
||||
* What are your non-negotiable boundaries?
|
||||
* How do you handle competing priorities?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Round 3: Skills & contributions - 6 min
|
||||
|
||||
* what do you excel at vs. what drains you?
|
||||
* where do you want to grow vs. where you're already expert?
|
||||
* how do you prefer to contribute when you're overwhelmed?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Round 4: Decision-making styles - 6 min
|
||||
|
||||
* How do you prefer to make decisions under pressure?
|
||||
* When do you need more information vs. when do you trust your gut?
|
||||
* How do you handle disagreement?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**==As a studio, still in your breakout==**
|
||||
|
||||
### Debrief - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
What surprised you? Where did you notice alignment? Where did you notice difference/divergence?
|
||||
|
||||
You probably noticed that a lot came up – and that's okay! We're going to keep talking about each of these areas as we go. All we did today is get the convo going. There's lots more work to do.
|
||||
|
||||
Remember: success for your studio is defined by your needs and values, not the industry's.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**==Back in the main huddle, mics off.==**
|
||||
|
||||
## Solo reflection - 12 min
|
||||
|
||||
Capture your own thoughts from today, privately. Journal wherever works for you. One sentence per question is fine. We'll call time at 12 min. You'll bring these notes to your PS session this week and decide what to share.
|
||||
|
||||
### From The Talk (5 min)
|
||||
|
||||
Think about:
|
||||
|
||||
* What came up in The Talk that you didn't fully say?
|
||||
* What's one question you want to come back to?
|
||||
|
||||
### Scale and pace (7 min)
|
||||
|
||||
* Where do you see the studio in 3 years? Size, structure, your role in it.
|
||||
* What's your working assumption about how the studio makes money?
|
||||
* Is this full-time for you, or alongside other work?
|
||||
|
||||
Your PS will come back to these questions at your meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
You've just done your Studio Support Meeting prep! Bring to your meeting this week:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Your solo reflection notes from today: tension and unsaid from The Talk, plus scale and pace. (You don't have to share everything.)
|
||||
2. Openness to continuing The Talk. Your PS will help you go deeper on whichever round brought up the most tension or uncertainty.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Next session, we'll take the values you've identified and turn principles into practices you can actually use when decisions get hard.
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: 'Session 3: Actionable Values and Impact'
|
||||
collection: Cooperative Foundations
|
||||
path: >-
|
||||
Cooperative Foundations/Session Content/Session 3: Actionable Values and
|
||||
Impact
|
||||
parentDocument: Session Content
|
||||
outlineId: 669d8b79-d081-44f3-a621-0865a27b8e4f
|
||||
createdBy: Jennie R.F.
|
||||
---
|
||||
> **Peer Supports:** See [PS Guide: Session 3 — Actionable Values and Impact](/doc/ps-guide-session-3-actionable-values-and-impact-IdMvVGgz7H) for your role during session and this week's studio support meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Welcome
|
||||
|
||||
* Slide: Tag Yourself activity
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Intro - 3 min
|
||||
|
||||
Over the last two sessions, we've covered **WHY** cooperatives matter to game developers who are challenging toxic industry norms, **WHAT** we want to build through shared purpose and values, and now we will dive into the **HOW**: The day-to-day tools you need to make democratic work... work! These tools are *technologies for liberation*, and every small step we take toward collectivism matters.
|
||||
|
||||
You've identified your values (Session 1) and started aligning with your collaborators (Session 2). But values on paper (or in your Miro board) don't prevent burnout or resolve conflict. This session introduces two tools to make values operational. Something you can return to when decisions get hard.
|
||||
|
||||
With these tools, we can change our work relationships immediately by choosing:
|
||||
|
||||
* consent over coercion
|
||||
* transparency over secrecy and gatekeeping
|
||||
* collective care over competition
|
||||
* slow over fast
|
||||
* horizontal over hierarchical
|
||||
|
||||
### Check-in - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
Last session you practiced The Talk and worked on scale and pace definitions with your team.
|
||||
|
||||
*what's a tension that came up - something that surprised you, or that you're still thinking about?*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case study from PS Presenter - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenarios - 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
*Breakouts in groups of about 4.*
|
||||
|
||||
So let's practice. We'll give you two scenarios. *Start with your values before you jump to the solution.*
|
||||
|
||||
**Scenario 1:** Someone is really excited about your studio and really wants to join, but you don't have funding to pay them. They claim that they just want experience. How do you handle this?
|
||||
|
||||
**Scenario 2:** A high-profile client who is legit and proven to have the funding wants to commission you to make art for them using generative AI. Your studio is at an early stage where getting clients at all is challenging. What do you do?
|
||||
|
||||
*Take 6-7 minutes to discuss each scenario. Remind them: Start with your values before you jump to the solution. What values came up? How did they shape the conversation?*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Tying your values to practices - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
You've identified values. You've had hard conversations about alignment. But how do values actually show up day-to-day?
|
||||
|
||||
Values that live only in a document or a Miro board don't prevent burnout, resolve conflict, or guide decisions under pressure. The gap between "we value transparency" and *actually practicing* transparency is where most studios struggle.
|
||||
|
||||
They also don't hold your studio together when someone asks "why are we even doing this?" In a Ghost Guild session after the program, we will work on public narrative - the practice of telling the story of why your studio exists in a way that actually moves people. For now, just notice: When you're working through Why/What/How, your "Why" is the beginning of that story. Hold tight to it!
|
||||
|
||||
This section introduces two tools to close that gap:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Why/What/How framework** - for turning values into concrete practices. You'll work on this with your Peer Supports.
|
||||
2. **Layers of Effect** - for checking whether potential outcomes from your actions match your intentions
|
||||
|
||||
Both tools give you something to return to when decisions get hard, when you're under deadline pressure, or when you realize you've drifted from what you said mattered.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Tools and frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
*for practicing values and assessing impact*
|
||||
|
||||
### Why/What/How framework - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
#### Using the framework
|
||||
|
||||
**First, identify the problem, decision, activity to analyse.**
|
||||
|
||||
The *order matters*: Why, then What, then How. And your values should guide all three levels.
|
||||
|
||||
**WHY** - Why does this value matter to us? What's at stake? Example: "We value transparency because secrecy entrenches power and excludes people from decisions that affect them."
|
||||
|
||||
**WHAT** - What does practicing this value look like? What are we committing to? Example: "All financial information is accessible to all members. Compensation is open."
|
||||
|
||||
**HOW** - How will we actually do this? What specific activities or outputs? Example: "Monthly financial summaries shared in Slack. Quarterly budget review meetings. New members oriented to finances in onboarding."
|
||||
|
||||
You'll work on this one more with your Peer Supports!
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Layers of Effect - 25 min
|
||||
|
||||
The second tool helps you see impact before (and after) you act.
|
||||
|
||||
**Layers of Effect** is a framework for mapping the ripple effects of your decisions - both intended and unintended. It's adapted from an exercise by UX designer Kat Zhou.
|
||||
|
||||
[Miro template](https://miro.com/templates/layers-effect-template/) \[PS: add to studio boards\]
|
||||
|
||||
#### How it works
|
||||
|
||||
The framework uses three concentric rings:
|
||||
|
||||
**Primary Effects** (centre ring) These are the *fundamental intentions* behind your activity - the direct, immediate impacts you're trying to create. For instance, a cooperative might focus on equitable profit sharing among all members, or prioritize sustainable and fair labour practices.
|
||||
|
||||
*Questions to ask:*
|
||||
|
||||
* What direct benefits will people experience?
|
||||
* Who might be immediately excluded or harmed?
|
||||
* What vulnerabilities are we creating?
|
||||
* What breaks immediately?
|
||||
|
||||
**Secondary Effects** (middle ring) These are *known but perhaps not immediately obvious* impacts. An example could be the cooperative's influence on promoting diversity and inclusion in the games industry, or its role in advocating for mental health awareness through its games and community interactions.
|
||||
|
||||
*Questions to ask:*
|
||||
|
||||
* How could positive behaviours spread through networks?
|
||||
* What dependencies or new risks are we introducing?
|
||||
* Who bears the burden of adaptation?
|
||||
* What erodes over months?
|
||||
|
||||
**Tertiary Effects** (outer ring) These involve *unforeseen consequences* that arise from your activities. This might include setting new industry standards for ethical game development, or inadvertently creating a platform for global collaboration and cultural exchange among developers and players.
|
||||
|
||||
*Questions to ask:*
|
||||
|
||||
* What industry standards could this establish?
|
||||
* What long-term societal impacts might emerge?
|
||||
* Which communities or ecosystems pay the price?
|
||||
* What shifts over years?
|
||||
|
||||
#### At each layer, think about:
|
||||
|
||||
* Who gains?
|
||||
* Who pays?
|
||||
* Who's invisible but affected?
|
||||
|
||||
*As effects move outward, who becomes responsible for unintended consequences?*
|
||||
|
||||
#### Using colour to map effects
|
||||
|
||||
On the template:
|
||||
|
||||
* Yellow = opportunities and benefits
|
||||
* Red = risks and costs
|
||||
|
||||
These might be connected - a benefit in one layer can create a risk in another.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
:::info
|
||||
Presenters share an example of what layers of effect can look like.
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
#### How to use it
|
||||
|
||||
* Before decisions:
|
||||
* map potential effects to anticipate consequences
|
||||
* To course-correct:
|
||||
* when something feels off, check whether your effects are matching your values
|
||||
* To refine values:
|
||||
* if you keep seeing the same unintended consequences, your values might need updating!
|
||||
|
||||
*We'll walk through a Baby Ghosts example (or presenter's example) so you can see this in action.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Recap - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
**To recap:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Start with your individual and collective values - talk them over
|
||||
* Talk about the WHY before you get to the WHAT and HOW
|
||||
* Use Layers of Effect to see if your impact is matching your values
|
||||
|
||||
We've covered a lot of topics here, but they are all centred around the goal of making sure your values are more than just lip-service.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What's Next
|
||||
|
||||
At your Studio Support Meeting with your Peer Supports this week, you will:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Apply Layers of Effect to an upcoming decision** – Use the Miro template on your studio board. Walk through: what are the primary, secondary, and tertiary effects? Who gains, who pays, who's invisible but affected?
|
||||
2. **Work through Why/What/How** – Start with at least one value from your team's values map.
|
||||
3. **Discuss as a studio** – How often should you revisit your values and check whether your effects match your intentions?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
*Which tool are you most curious to try?*
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,371 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: 'Session 4: Decision-Making in Practice'
|
||||
collection: Cooperative Foundations
|
||||
path: 'Cooperative Foundations/Session Content/Session 4: Decision-Making in Practice'
|
||||
parentDocument: Session Content
|
||||
outlineId: e9b1999d-b7b8-414f-85cc-0a702d3e282c
|
||||
createdBy: Jennie R.F.
|
||||
---
|
||||
> **Peer Supports:** See [PS Guide: Session 4 — Decision-Making in Practice](/doc/ps-guide-session-4-decision-making-in-practice-kr8zgH2Sx6) for your role during session and this week's studio support meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
## Welcome
|
||||
|
||||
* Slide: Tag Yourself
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Intro - 2 min
|
||||
|
||||
You've identified your values and started making them actionable. But when the pressure is on and you need to make a call together, who decides? How? In traditional studios, the boss decides or the loudest voice wins. Cooperatives need different approaches that include everyone while still moving forward.
|
||||
|
||||
This session is about noticing your *current* patterns and practicing alternatives. Before we can design governance structures (next session), we need to see clearly how decisions actually happen now.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Check-in - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Last session you practiced Layers of Effect on a decision. What did you notice when you tried to connect your values to a specific decision? Was it easier or harder than expected?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision-making - 25 min
|
||||
|
||||
### Who gets to raise issues? - 6 min
|
||||
|
||||
The old way of making decisions is the boss decides for everyone, or majority rules. But coops use different approaches that include everyone while still moving projects forward.
|
||||
|
||||
But before we look at different methods for decision-making, let's talk about **when** and **why** decisions need to be made.
|
||||
|
||||
In traditional structures, only managers can put items on meeting agendas. Only certain people can say "we need to decide this." Everyone else has to hope someone with authority notices the problem.
|
||||
|
||||
In a cooperative, **anyone affected by an issue** can bring it to the group. But we need systems so important things don't get los\*t and small things don't overwhelm us.
|
||||
|
||||
**Activity: Private journaling (3 min)**
|
||||
|
||||
* What decisions get made without asking anyone?
|
||||
* What issues do you notice but can't formally raise?
|
||||
* When do you wish you could say "hey, we should all talk about this"?
|
||||
* What traits/behaviours get valued in your group? (e.g., fast processing, availability, wittiness, technical skills)
|
||||
|
||||
Where do cooperative decision-making opportunities come from? From members raising issues. Here are some examples:
|
||||
|
||||
* Proposals
|
||||
* *I think we should do X. Here's why and how. What does everyone think?*
|
||||
* Check-ins
|
||||
* *How is everyone feeling about Y? Should we address this formally?*
|
||||
* Process intervention
|
||||
* *Can we try a different approach?*
|
||||
* Values checks
|
||||
* *How do these options align with our values?*
|
||||
|
||||
But **who** makes decisions? When determining who will make a decision, ask:
|
||||
|
||||
* Who is most affected by that decision?
|
||||
* Does it have far-reaching consequences for the entire cooperative (like a change to who can be a member), or does it mainly affect a specific discipline/person/team?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool introduction: Informal Hierarchy Check-In - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
*inspired by Fuck Hierarchy! by* [*Yejin Lee*](https://www.jeongllc.com/aboutyejin)
|
||||
|
||||
Studios should do a periodic check-in to assess how they are doing around informal hierarchy. These questions help you notice patterns before they become de facto process:
|
||||
|
||||
**Who spoke most in our last meeting?** This reveals voice distribution - whose contributions dominate discussions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Whose idea did we go with by default?** This reveals deference patterns - whose suggestions get adopted without much scrutiny.
|
||||
|
||||
**Who knows how to do *X* that no one else knows?** This reveals knowledge concentration - where expertise creates dependency.
|
||||
|
||||
**What happened last time someone disagreed?** This reveals dissent tolerance - whether pushback is welcomed or punished.
|
||||
|
||||
**Whose schedule shapes our meeting times?** This reveals whose needs get centred - who the group accommodates and who has to adjust.
|
||||
|
||||
You don't need to feel guilty if some of these questions point to you! For the group, it's important to *notice* patterns before they calcify.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Decision-making steps - 7 min
|
||||
|
||||
Whatever framework you use, cooperative decision-making involves choosing between options together. Consider these steps:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Name the decision and who it affects. Be clear about what's actually being decided and whose voices need to be included.
|
||||
2. Understand the context. What's happening? What do people feel and notice about this situation? *Emotions are rich information.*
|
||||
3. Identify the underlying need. What are we actually trying to address here?
|
||||
4. Generate options together. What approaches might work? Encourage unconventional (weird!) ideas. Notice who's contributing: Are the same people always first to speak? Whose ideas get picked up and built on?
|
||||
5. Check alignment with your values. How do these options fit with who you want to be as a studio?
|
||||
6. Evaluate consequences collectively. Who benefits, who's affected, what trade-offs exist? Notice whose preferences are shaping the conversation and whether anyone has gone quiet.
|
||||
7. Decide using your chosen framework. *Name the method* (consent, consensus, etc.) before you begin. Before finalizing, pause and ask directly: "Does anyone have concerns they haven't voiced?" or "Is anyone agreeing just to move on?" Give time for people to respond, especially those who process more slowly or tend to stay quiet. Silence doesn't mean agreement.
|
||||
8. Clarify implementation and revisit. Who does what? When will you check back to see if adjustments are needed?
|
||||
|
||||
*Adapted from Effective Practices in Starting Co-ops*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Handling dissent - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
When someone raises a concern late in the process, don't get frustrated that they are slowing the process down. *This is **super valuable** information!* Thank them for speaking up! It's not an easy thing to do, even for a contrarian (well, maybe).
|
||||
|
||||
Then consider: Is this a clarification or modification that can be addressed quickly? Or does it point to something more fundamental that means the group isn't ready to decide? If the concern is substantial, revisit earlier steps (especially 2, 3, or 5).
|
||||
|
||||
Watch for language like "I guess I can live with it" or "I don't want to hold everyone up," which show that someone is just giving in to move things along rather than really consenting. *A decision that leaves someone feeling steamrolled will cost more in trust and cohesion than the time it takes to slow down.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Frameworks - 14 min
|
||||
|
||||
Different decisions call for different approaches. Here are five common frameworks:
|
||||
|
||||
### Consensus - 7 min
|
||||
|
||||
Everyone agrees that the selected option is the right option. Members can block a decision if it is not their top choice (even if they'd be ok with it).
|
||||
|
||||
> "It's important to remember that **no decision-making structure can prevent all conflict or power dynamics, or guarantee that we will never be frustrated or bored or decide to part ways.** But consensus decision-making at least helps us avoid the worst costs of hierarchies and majority rules, which can include abuse of power, demobilization of most people, and inefficiency. **Consensus decision-making** gives us the best chance to hear from everyone concerned, address power dynamics, and make decisions that represent the best wisdom of the group and that people in the group will want to implement."\n– Dean Spade, [*Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (and the Next)*](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dean-spade-mutual-aid#toc14)
|
||||
|
||||
Consensus decision-making is the most effective way to make important decisions with small groups. The process requires direct participation and active listening from all involved and, when well facilitated, leads to better decisions and stronger commitment.
|
||||
|
||||
**Core principles:**
|
||||
|
||||
* All participants contribute
|
||||
* Everyone's opinions are used and encouraged
|
||||
* Differences are viewed as helpful rather than hindering
|
||||
* Those members who continue to disagree after full discussion indicate that they are willing to experiment for a prescribed period of time
|
||||
* Enough time will be spent that all voices are heard and understood before an effort to finalize a decision is made, however long that takes
|
||||
* All members share in the final decision
|
||||
|
||||
**Advantages:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Members are more likely to support the decision
|
||||
* Provides for a win-win solution
|
||||
* Facilitates open communication
|
||||
* Requires members to listen and understand all sides of the issue
|
||||
* Sets the stage for action: Who, What, Where, When
|
||||
|
||||
**Disadvantages:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Takes more time in a group; the larger the group, the more time may be needed
|
||||
* Trust is needed among members to encourage sharing
|
||||
* Group leaders must use facilitation rather than control
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps in facilitating consensus:**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Describe and define the problem, situation, or issue
|
||||
2. Brainstorm a list of alternatives without judging, discussing, or rejecting any ideas
|
||||
3. Take only one idea from each person to start
|
||||
4. Review, change, consolidate, rewrite, and set priorities as a group through discussion
|
||||
5. Make a decision; when it's reached make sure it is written so that everyone can see it
|
||||
6. Evaluate the results later - revise if needed
|
||||
|
||||
*Source: Russ Christianson (Effective Practices in Starting Co-ops, p. 470) and Washington State University Cooperative Extension*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Consent - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
Consent helps us find an option that everyone is okay with, even if it's not their first choice. The decision statement must be carefully worded so that everyone is crystal clear on what they are consenting to.
|
||||
|
||||
The question in consent is: "Is this good enough for now, safe enough to try?"
|
||||
|
||||
This is different from consensus. In consensus, everyone must actively agree that the decision is the right choice. In consent, the bar is lower: No one has a paramount objection. You're asking "Can you live with this? Does it violate your values or cause harm you can't accept?" rather than "Do you love this?"
|
||||
|
||||
Consent also protects against the opposite problem: Rigidity. When a group treats past decisions as permanent – "but we already agreed to make an RPG" – it can become impossible to adapt when things change. Consent-based decisions are explicitly *revisitable*. The question isn't just "can you live with this?" but also "can you live with this *for now*, knowing we'll check back?" If someone is blocking a revisit of an old decision, that's worth examining – are they protecting a genuine value, or has the original decision become an identity they can't let go of?
|
||||
|
||||
Sociocracy is one approach to this. Sociocratic organizations use a peer governance system based on consent, where work is organized into semiautonomous small groups, known as circles. Sociocracy has a very specific formal structure for consent decision-making. We'll link to its process so you can check it out.
|
||||
|
||||
[Consent Decision Making – Sociocracy 3.0](https://patterns.sociocracy30.org/consent-decision-making.html)
|
||||
|
||||
Consent makes room for experimentation. If a decision doesn't work, you can always revisit it. This prevents analysis paralysis while still hearing everyone's concerns.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Other frameworks - 2 min
|
||||
|
||||
**Majority/democratic:** Each member votes, and the option with the most votes wins (simple majority, two-thirds, etc.). If your group uses formal voting, consider Democratic Rules of Order over Robert's Rules – same structure (chair, agenda, motions, votes) but without the procedural layers that create knowledge asymmetry and can be exploited as a power dynamic. Robert's Rules are arcane, parliamentary, and not appropriate for democratic organizations. Steer clear!
|
||||
|
||||
**Delegation:** The member with the most expertise makes the decision – but how is this person determined? Through a decision!
|
||||
|
||||
**Random chance:** When no one wants to decide, use a tool that generates a random yea or nay. A dice roll, coin flip – something like that.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Meetings - 25 min
|
||||
|
||||
Most meetings suck because they're designed hierarchically (one person talks, decisions happen elsewhere later). We're going to redesign them horizontally!
|
||||
|
||||
### Preparation for an inclusive meeting - 3 min
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Use accessible tools for finding everyone's availability (Doodle, When2Meet, LettuceMeet, etc.)
|
||||
2. Keep the meeting duration as short as you can while covering the agenda. Remember, participants' energy levels will fluctuate and you don't want to go so long that people get cranky. If you have too much ground to cover, consider moving some items to an asynchronous method like Slack threads or moving it to the agenda of a future meeting.
|
||||
3. Prepare and share the agenda with time limits per item.
|
||||
4. Assign roles and ensure they are rotated from previous meetings.
|
||||
|
||||
Let's talk about meeting roles!
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Meeting roles - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Meeting roles shouldn't be static. When the same person always facilitates, their style becomes "how we do meetings." Rotation (rotation! rotation! we can't emphasize this enough) builds shared skills and prevents informal hierarchy from becoming default process.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Facilitator
|
||||
|
||||
Guides the conversation and keeps things on track. The facilitator's job is to *help the group's wisdom emerge* rather than act as an expert on the topics. They should self-moderate their own input and be especially conscious of not being the strongest voice.
|
||||
|
||||
They also pay attention to group dynamics – such as, who hasn't spoken? Is someone checked out? Is tension building? (Some folks break this last responsibility into a*process/vibes observer* role, which may be especially helpful when trying out new decision-making methods.)
|
||||
|
||||
Facilitating can feel intense/scary, but it's an important skill for everyone to develop. Here are some useful tips to guide your own facilitation:
|
||||
|
||||
**Tips:**
|
||||
|
||||
* Before opening the floor, you can provide some quiet time for participants to write their thoughts down first
|
||||
* Using "popcorn" style means anyone can jump in to share without a formal queue. Avoid selecting people to speak randomly (cold-calling) – this can be stressful for those who do not wish to be called on. If multiple people indicate they want to speak, keep track of the queue and update the group.
|
||||
* Share the floor. The facilitator makes sure that everyone gets heard and included, and no one dominates the discussion. They might intervene: "Jennie, we've heard a lot from you and I want to give some others a chance to share their perspectives."
|
||||
* Provide regular process updates – that is, say what you're doing: "I'm going to take a few ideas, then we'll discuss"
|
||||
* Listen actively and deeply
|
||||
* Reflect back ideas that are shared and check with the speaker that you understand. This is an opportunity to synthesize what you just heard with the wider conversation to help everyone's understanding.
|
||||
* Put ideas for later in the parking lot
|
||||
* Red flags: rushing process and not tolerating awkwardness
|
||||
* Check in with energy levels, especially when you see people are flagging. A 5- or 10-minute break might help perk everyone up to continue.
|
||||
* Have prompts on hand if things go awry:
|
||||
* "I am noticing the tension. Should we pause and address that first?"
|
||||
* "I feel like we're going in circles/getting stuck – let's try a different approach."
|
||||
* "Let's pause for a moment and look at our process."
|
||||
|
||||
#### Notetaker/minutes goblin
|
||||
|
||||
Captures attendance, most important points, decisions made, and action items. Good notes include *who decided what* and *why*, not just discussion summaries. This creates accountability that doesn't depend on memory.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Timekeeper/time baby
|
||||
|
||||
Tracks time for each agenda item and gives warnings when time is running low. Helps the group decide whether to extend, table, or wrap up.
|
||||
|
||||
Not every meeting needs all three roles, but rotating whatever roles you use prevents one person from becoming the de facto leader.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
:::tip
|
||||
**HOT TIP: Not everything needs to be a meeting!** Meetings can also be a drain on a team. Consider when you can turn something into an asynchronous conversation or just have people assigned with tasks.
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
:::tip
|
||||
**Consistency beats ambition:** what's the minimum viable rhythm your studio could actually maintain? Not the ideal one… the real one.
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### The "genius" trap - 3 min
|
||||
|
||||
When one person holds most of the knowledge, makes most of the creative calls, or is the only one who knows how something works, this is not a coop. You have a traditional studio with extra steps. This often emerges from who had time/was there first/whose skills were most visible at the start.
|
||||
|
||||
Questions to help you spot role concentration:
|
||||
|
||||
* who would we call if \[X system\] broke?
|
||||
* whose absence would completely halt production?
|
||||
* who "just handles" things that others don't fully understand?
|
||||
|
||||
If the same name keeps coming up, you have a capacity risk *and* a governance risk.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Role distribution != role rigidity - 3 min
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperative roles should be:
|
||||
|
||||
Visible
|
||||
|
||||
* everyone knows who's responsible for what
|
||||
* assigned through discussion, not assumption
|
||||
* reviewed periodically as capacity and skills change
|
||||
|
||||
This doesn't mean everyone does everything. Specialization is fine. The problem is when roles become permanent defaults that no one chose explicitly.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Tracking and micro-documentation - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
*Nobody* loves tracking. (OK, maybe that biohacker guy Brian Johnson.) But when you don't document, institutional knowledge lives in one person's head, and that's how informal hierarchy gets baked in.
|
||||
|
||||
Micro-documentation means capturing just enough that others can:
|
||||
|
||||
* pick up where you left off
|
||||
* understand why a decision was made
|
||||
* notice patterns over time
|
||||
|
||||
This doesn't require elaborate systems. It can be:
|
||||
|
||||
* a shared doc/sheet where decisions get logged with date and rationale
|
||||
* brief async updates ("here's what I did and why")
|
||||
* meeting notes that include *who decided what*, not just discussion summaries
|
||||
|
||||
**When you track decisions and contributions visibly, you create accountability that doesn't depend on memory or who speaks loudest.**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Activity: Facilitation rotation practice - 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
Breakouts
|
||||
|
||||
In groups, each take a turn as facilitator.
|
||||
|
||||
The facilitator will run a short discussion on a simple question (we'll give you one).
|
||||
|
||||
**Sample questions:**
|
||||
|
||||
* What game should we play together?
|
||||
* What time during the week should we meet?
|
||||
* Which two video game soundtracks should we swap?
|
||||
* What type of team activity should we do?
|
||||
|
||||
The observer watches for dynamics: Who spoke first? How did the facilitator handle silence? How was the decision reached?
|
||||
|
||||
Rotate roles every 3 minutes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Debrief (4 min):** What did you notice from each role? What was harder than expected?
|
||||
|
||||
*Noticing dynamics is the most important thing here.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing - 2 min
|
||||
|
||||
You've practiced frameworks and started noticing patterns – who speaks, who defers, whose defaults became the group's. These patterns *are* your governance, whether you've named it or not.
|
||||
|
||||
Next session, we'll look at formal structures: How do you design governance that supports the decision-making practices you want and addresses the dynamics you noticed?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Homework - 3 min
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Practice one decision-making framework on a real decision** – Try consent or consensus on something that actually matters, even if it's small.
|
||||
2. **Map your current role distribution** – Where did each role assignment come from: Explicit decision, or implicit default?
|
||||
3. **Complete the Informal Hierarchy Check-In as a studio** – Work through the 5 questions together. Bring your observations to Session 5.
|
||||
4. **Notice this week: where do decisions happen?** – In meetings? DMs? Who's present?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,337 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: 'Session 5: Coop Structures and Governance'
|
||||
collection: Cooperative Foundations
|
||||
path: >-
|
||||
Cooperative Foundations/Session Content/Session 5: Coop Structures and
|
||||
Governance
|
||||
parentDocument: Session Content
|
||||
outlineId: 8b0da5a8-3838-4e2f-af48-ead5f3d800dc
|
||||
createdBy: Jennie R.F.
|
||||
---
|
||||
> **Peer Supports:** See [PS Guide: Session 5 — Coop Structures and Governance](/doc/ps-guide-session-5-coop-structures-and-governance-3cJzhzQ53D) for your role during session and this week's studio support meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Welcome
|
||||
|
||||
* Slide: Tag Yourself
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Intro - 3 min
|
||||
|
||||
Last session you practiced decision-making frameworks and noticed your current patterns. Those patterns *are* your governance, whether you've called it that or not.
|
||||
|
||||
You don't need to incorporate in order to practice governance. But the structures you choose now will shape what kind of co-op you become. This session is about making that governance visible and intentional.
|
||||
|
||||
## Check-in - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
*what did the informal hierarchy check-in reveal about your studio? anything surprising?*
|
||||
|
||||
*could your studio function for two weeks without any one person? if not, what would need to change?*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Coop vs Business - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Before we talk about governance, let's quickly cover the legal landscape. You don't need to incorporate right now, but understanding the options helps you design governance that fits your eventual structure.
|
||||
|
||||
### Common structures for game studios
|
||||
|
||||
| Structure | Who owns it? | Who decides? | Who benefits? |
|
||||
|:----------|:-------------|:-------------|:--------------|
|
||||
| sole proprietorship | One person | That person | That person |
|
||||
| Partnership | partners (often unequal shares) | usually based on ownership % | based on ownership % |
|
||||
| corporation | shareholders | board (elected by shareholders) | shareholders (via dividends) |
|
||||
| worker cooperative | workers (equal or near-equal) | workers (one member, one vote) | workers (based on labour, not capital) |
|
||||
|
||||
### What makes a coop legally distinct?
|
||||
|
||||
Three things:
|
||||
|
||||
* Democratic control
|
||||
* One member, one vote. Not weighted by how much money you put in.
|
||||
* Member ownership
|
||||
* The people who work there own it. Not outside investors, not founders who left years ago.
|
||||
* Patronage returns - Surplus (profit) flows back to members based on their *labour contribution*, not their capital investment. Money follows work, not money.
|
||||
|
||||
### The practical difference
|
||||
|
||||
In a corporation, if you and two friends start a studio and one person puts in more money, they might own 60% and control major decisions. If you hire employees later, they're workers – not owners. If you sell the company, the original shareholders profit.
|
||||
|
||||
In a worker co-op, every worker-owner has equal (or near-equal) say regardless of when they joined or how much they invested. If someone leaves, they don't keep ownership. New members buy in and become full owners.
|
||||
|
||||
What aligns with your values and how you want to work together?
|
||||
|
||||
### You don't need to rush
|
||||
|
||||
Incorporation creates:
|
||||
|
||||
* Legal protections (limited liability)
|
||||
* Access to certain funding and tax benefits (e.g., OIDMTC in Ontario)
|
||||
* An entity that can hold contracts, own IP, and survive individual members leaving
|
||||
|
||||
Incorporation is not hard or expensive – which makes it tempting to treat as a milestone before the real work is done. But groups that rush to incorporate often find themselves still at step one two or three years later, because the relational and governance groundwork wasn't there yet.
|
||||
|
||||
A few things worth knowing early: the Cooperative Corporations Act already covers a lot of ground. You don't need to replicate what the Act handles in your articles of incorporation, and over-specifying your objects or share structure in an attempt to "maintain control" is usually counterproductive – flexibility serves the co-op better as it evolves. Bylaws matter, but they're not the most important thing. Economic viability is. Spending too much time wordsmithing your bylaws is a distraction from the harder work of building sustainability.
|
||||
|
||||
One more thing: Your legal advisors may not have co-op experience. Lawyers tend to default to conventional corporate structures, so seek out advisors who understand cooperative law, or at minimum, bring your own informed questions.
|
||||
|
||||
The patterns you establish now – how you make decisions, how you handle money, how you share power – will shape what kind of co-op you become.
|
||||
|
||||
***Today's focus: Governance practice, not legal paperwork.***
|
||||
|
||||
### Quick check
|
||||
|
||||
*By emoji reaction or in chat:*
|
||||
|
||||
* How many of you have worked at a studio where you had no say in major decisions?
|
||||
* How many have had equity or ownership in a company before?
|
||||
|
||||
*no need to discuss - just noticing where we're starting from*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why cooperative structures? - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
The informal hierarchy check-in revealed patterns, right?
|
||||
|
||||
Those patterns aren't problems yet. But under pressure informal patterns become cracks.
|
||||
|
||||
Think: A funding deadline, a team member's life change, a game that's not working
|
||||
|
||||
OK, we'll say it again: *Studios don't fail because of creative differences. They fail because of governance, conflict resolution, and communication misalignment.* The game was good. The team couldn't hold together long enough to ship it.
|
||||
|
||||
You've already been practicing governance:
|
||||
|
||||
* have you deferred a preference (e.g., working odd hours) to fit with the group?
|
||||
* have decisions been made in DMs?
|
||||
* does one person hold knowledge others don't?
|
||||
|
||||
Will you choose your governance structure together or let it emerge by default?
|
||||
|
||||
You might think of governance as bureaucracy. But it's quite the opposite: It's making the invisible visible, the accidental intentional, the implicit explicit. It's building structures that enact your values so you have a clear path through the hard times.
|
||||
|
||||
Not everyone in your studio needs to be a co-op nerd for your co-op to work. What matters is that your governance documents *encode your values into systems*. If your bylaws require transparent finances, transparency happens whether or not every member has internalized why it matters. If your decision-making process requires consent, no one can override the group even on a bad day. The documents you write this week are how your values work *almost automatically* even when people are tired and stressed.
|
||||
|
||||
We want you to start making deliberate choices about how you'll work together, knowing you can revise as you learn.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Case Study: Presenter's governance journey - 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Governance Models Overview - 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
### Small studios (3-6 people): Collective Governance
|
||||
|
||||
This is the oldest governance model there is. Indigenous nations, mutual aid societies, worker collectives across cultures have governed this way for centuries. When we talked in Session 1 about cooperative lineages that predate Rochdale, this is what a lot of that looked like in practice!
|
||||
|
||||
* All members make all major decisions together
|
||||
* Rotate facilitation and administrative roles
|
||||
* Use consent-based decision-making for most choices
|
||||
* Monthly governance meetings for larger decisions
|
||||
* Members are responsible for implementing their proposals
|
||||
|
||||
### Small studios alternative: Advice Process
|
||||
|
||||
You don't need their permission - just their input. Then you decide and own the outcome.
|
||||
|
||||
* Anyone can make any decision, but must first seek advice from those affected and those with expertise. (You don't *need* agreement.)
|
||||
* Helps work move faster without disconnecting knowledge from the coop; cuts down on meetings
|
||||
* Requires high levels of trust and transparency
|
||||
|
||||
Advice process fails if people skip the advice-seeking or if "advice" becomes de facto veto power.
|
||||
|
||||
*From Buurtzorg and the "Reinventing Organizations" model*
|
||||
|
||||
### Larger studios (7+): Circles (Sociocracy)
|
||||
|
||||
The Circles model is essentially **sociocracy** (also called dynamic governance), which has roots in Quaker consensus practice and was formalized in the Netherlands in the 1970s.
|
||||
|
||||
* Organize work into semi-autonomous circles (art, programming, bizdev)
|
||||
* Each circle manages its own domain with clear boundaries
|
||||
* Decisions within circles use ***consent*** process
|
||||
* Circles link together through representatives who sit on multiple circles
|
||||
* Larger decisions involving multiple circles invoke a representative Council
|
||||
* Regular inter-circle coordination meetings
|
||||
|
||||
[Sociocracy 3.0 (S3)](https://sociocracy30.org/) is an open-source, modular version - teams adopt patterns à la carte rather than implementing a whole system. Good if you want "some structure but not a rigid framework."
|
||||
|
||||
You may have heard of [Holacracy](https://www.holacracy.org/). It is a more formalized, trademarked variant popularized by Zappos. More rigid and prescriptive, with detailed rules about roles and accountabilities. Overkill and overly corporate for you all.
|
||||
|
||||
### Larger studios alternative: Board + Membership
|
||||
|
||||
* All worker-owners are members
|
||||
* Members elect a smaller board for ongoing governance
|
||||
* Board accountable to membership through regular reporting
|
||||
* Board sets conditions on membership and removal
|
||||
* Board uses majority vote
|
||||
* Clear division between governance (board) and operations (daily work)
|
||||
|
||||
This model is closer to traditional nonprofit or corporate governance but with worker ownership. Can feel more familiar to people coming from conventional workplaces.
|
||||
|
||||
But it's insufficient to just elect a board and call it democratic, if decisions have impact in a community that community needs to have a meaningful say in what those decisions are. It should go beyond "input" to actually having decision-making power.
|
||||
|
||||
### Large studios alternative: DisCos (Distributed Cooperative Organizations)
|
||||
|
||||
Developed by Guerrilla Media Collective, drawing on feminist economics and the solidarity economy tradition. "Distributed" means distributed geographically (remote-first), distributed power (shared based on contribution), and distributed value (multiple types of work all count). The distinction between productive, care, and love work comes from decades of feminist labour organizing that made invisible work visible. Explicitly a cooperative, care-centred alternative to DAOs.
|
||||
|
||||
Gamma Space uses an adapted version of this model!
|
||||
|
||||
* Value tracking across work types - distinguishes between *productive work* (the game),*care work* (team wellbeing), and *love work* (community, movement-building)
|
||||
* Uses contributory accounting so invisible labour becomes visible and compensated
|
||||
* Challenges assumptions about what counts as "real" work
|
||||
* Federation over scaling - small nodes (max 15-20 people) federate together rather than growing one large organization
|
||||
* Geared toward shared resources and open practices
|
||||
|
||||
DisCOs build structures to account for work that often goes undervalued and unrecognized.
|
||||
|
||||
Resources: [DisCO.coop](https://disco.coop) and the DisCO Manifesto
|
||||
|
||||
Hot tip: Begin with collective governance or advice process, even if you think it's not the perfect fit. You can add complexity as you learn what you actually need.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Decisions to clarify - 7 min
|
||||
|
||||
Whatever model you choose, clarify:
|
||||
|
||||
* Who can make spending decisions and up to what amount?
|
||||
* What decisions require everyone vs. smaller groups?
|
||||
* How do you change your governance structure as you grow?
|
||||
* How do you document decisions and studio knowledge so it's not concentrated in one person?
|
||||
|
||||
#### How do you add or remove members?
|
||||
|
||||
This is often the hardest governance conversation. But you gotta have it before you need it.
|
||||
|
||||
*Pre-formation studios often assume the original founders are permanent. But your governance should apply to everyone equally.*
|
||||
|
||||
Adding members:
|
||||
|
||||
* what's the process? who decides?
|
||||
* is there a trial period?
|
||||
* how do you onboard someone into your governance culture, not just your workflows?
|
||||
|
||||
Voluntary departure:
|
||||
|
||||
* what happens to their ownership stake?
|
||||
* what about work in progress they were leading?
|
||||
|
||||
Involuntary removal:
|
||||
|
||||
* what are grounds for removal?
|
||||
* who initiates/decides/what protections exist for the person being removed
|
||||
* without a clear process, removal either doesn't happen (and resentment builds) or happens and it's a big ol mess
|
||||
|
||||
#### Make accountability worth it
|
||||
|
||||
If owning up to harm in your studio means losing everything – your community, your friends, your credibility, your income, your creative home – nobody will do it. They'll do anything to avoid that. You could end up spending months in a slow-motion crisis with no path out of it.
|
||||
|
||||
When you're designing your conflict and removal policies, ask: Is it more worth it for someone to admit what they did than to lie about it? Is there a path back? Real consequences, real change required - but a path. If the only outcome of honesty is exile, you'll inevitably get dishonesty.
|
||||
|
||||
This doesn't mean tolerating ongoing harm. Your process should distinguish between someone who is genuinely working to change and someone who is performing accountability while continuing the behaviour. The former needs support and real consequences; the latter needs a different response.
|
||||
|
||||
#### The complexity of removing someone you care about
|
||||
|
||||
The person you're removing is probably someone you care about. They're your collaborator and maybe your friend. The instinct to paint them as an irredeemable villain or monster makes the decision easier, but it's dishonest and in itself harmful to everyone. People who cause harm in your studio are human beings in your community - and yes, they hurt others, and that needs to be addressed. Holding both the care and the harm is one of the hardest tasks in cooperative work. Make room for that complexity rather than forcing everyone into a binary of good/bad.
|
||||
|
||||
The person being removed may also be someone whose invisible labour has held things together. Community organizers, founders, people who did the unglamorous work of keeping things going when resources were scant - their contributions become very visible in their absence. A removal process that severs someone completely, without dialogue and without acknowledging what they built, both harms that person and damages the collective's relationship with its own history. Someone can take accountability for harm while the group still recognizes what they contributed. These ideas are both part of the truth and enable repair.
|
||||
|
||||
Exile – total severance from community, communication, and support networks – is one of the most punishing things a group can do to a person, and it should be treated with that weight. If your removal process looks like excommunication, ask whether that's proportionate, whether it's actually serving the safety of the group, or whether it's being driven by urgency, fear, or the desire to make a painful situation disappear quickly. A process that centres care means making those decisions with enough deliberation, transparency, and humanity that everyone involved - including the person being removed - can see that the process was trustworthy.
|
||||
|
||||
*you don't need to finalize these policies now. but you should know where your group is easily aligned vs. where you'll need more conversation.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Decisions under external pressure - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
What happens when a publisher wants an answer in 48 hours? When a grant deadline lands during a conflict or crisis? When a platform opportunity requires a yes or no right now?
|
||||
|
||||
Think back to two weeks ago when we went over two scenarios and how you would make a decision as a studio. The focus was on returning to values. Governance can make sure you're structuring that essential values work.
|
||||
|
||||
The urgency of external pressure can break down democratic processes. OR, you might discover you never planned for this situation!
|
||||
|
||||
Some things you could do:
|
||||
|
||||
* Delegation with parameters
|
||||
* for opportunities under $x or commitments under y weeks, \[person/role\] can decide. anything bigger comes to the full coop.
|
||||
* Emergency consent
|
||||
* we'll make a decision with whoever's available, then confirm or revisit at our next full coop meeting
|
||||
* Defined response
|
||||
* we tell external parties we need \[x days\] to decide collectively. And if they can't wait, it's not the right fit
|
||||
|
||||
It comes back to V A L U E S! And having a plan in place you've all agreed to ahead of time.
|
||||
|
||||
*Think about past times when you've faced external deadlines. Who decided? Was everyone okay with that?*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## From patterns to structure - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
### Distributed capacity
|
||||
|
||||
In Session 4 you noticed patterns through the Informal Hierarchy Check-In. So what governance structures would address what you noticed?
|
||||
|
||||
Use these questions to connect your observations to design choices:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Whose defaults have become the group's defaults?
|
||||
* Did everyone consent to that? What structure ensures future defaults are chosen collectively?
|
||||
2. What knowledge is concentrated in one person?
|
||||
* What happens if they leave or burn out? How does your governance distribute capacity?
|
||||
* "Each historical moment of the organization should be carefully documented and archived... Investing in documentation also ensures that the power that comes from information is better distributed." -- [Solidarity Economy Principles](https://solidarityeconomyprinciples.org/)
|
||||
3. Who can say no, and what happens when they do?
|
||||
* Does your structure make dissent safe and productive?
|
||||
4. What rhythms and speeds does the group assume?
|
||||
* Who gets excluded by those assumptions? How do you build in flexibility?
|
||||
5. How does accountability move?
|
||||
* Only from members to collective? Or in all directions?
|
||||
|
||||
The patterns you noticed aren't problems to fix!
|
||||
|
||||
They're information for design. Your governance should make the invisible visible and the accidental… intentional!
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Tool: Community Rule - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
[Community Rule](https://communityrule.info/) is a tool for documenting governance structures in plain language. We'll walk through the interface and show you an example from Gamma Space.
|
||||
|
||||
Start drafting with your Peer Support this week, taking note of what fields the tool asks for and where you already have answers vs. where you need to chat more.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
You've drafted a governance structure based on what you've learned about your decision-making patterns. But governance doesn't exist in a vacuum. It shapes (and is shaped by) how you handle money.
|
||||
|
||||
Next session, we'll dig into equitable economics: Transparent finances, compensation models, and profit-sharing. The governance you've designed will help you make those financial decisions together.
|
||||
|
||||
*Think about: What's one aspect of governance your team hasn't discussed yet?*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Homework
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Start your Community Rule draft** – During your PS session this week, use the tool to document what you've decided so far and where the gaps are. Bring questions to next session.
|
||||
2. **Discuss financial sustainability with your studio** – What does financial sustainability look like for you personally? What would you need from this project? (Prep for Session 6.)
|
||||
3. **Personal reflection** – What financial information have you never been allowed to see at work?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: 'Session 6: Equitable Economics'
|
||||
collection: Cooperative Foundations
|
||||
path: 'Cooperative Foundations/Session Content/Session 6: Equitable Economics'
|
||||
parentDocument: Session Content
|
||||
outlineId: 7d969dbb-eff0-43a1-a017-c80c470dac79
|
||||
createdBy: Jennie R.F.
|
||||
---
|
||||
> **Peer Supports:** See [PS Guide: Session 6 — Equitable Economics](/doc/ps-guide-session-6-equitable-economics-2TJJWj4zWu) for your role during session and this week's studio support meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
## Welcome
|
||||
|
||||
Tag Yourself
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Intro – 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
Last session you designed governance structures. Now we test them on the hardest topic: Money.
|
||||
|
||||
In traditional studios, financial information is hoarded. If the boss says we can't afford raises, how do you know that's true if you don't have access to the books? If you've been the victim of the sudden shuttering of a studio, you probably didn't see it coming, because you never saw the real financial picture.
|
||||
|
||||
Secrecy entrenches power. In a cooperative, we have the opportunity to bust this wide open.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Check-in – 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Last session's homework asked you to discuss: *What does financial sustainability look like for you personally? What would you need from this project?*
|
||||
|
||||
Anyone want to share what came up in that conversation?
|
||||
|
||||
*And think about what financial information have you never been allowed to see at work?*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 1: Where money comes from – 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
We're going to talk about transparency and sharing in a bit. But we want to start with the good stuff!
|
||||
|
||||
Where does money actually come from for game studios and creative cooperatives?
|
||||
|
||||
Most sustainable studios don't rely on a single revenue stream.
|
||||
|
||||
### Member contributions
|
||||
|
||||
* Member shares – equity buy-in when you join
|
||||
* Member loans – members lending to the co-op, sometimes with interest
|
||||
* Sweat equity – labour contributed before there's money to pay wages
|
||||
|
||||
### Grants and public funding
|
||||
|
||||
* Arts councils – Ontario Arts Council, Canada Council
|
||||
* Industry programs – Ontario Creates, Canada Media Fund, etc.
|
||||
* Municipal and regional funds
|
||||
* Project-specific grants
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
:::warning
|
||||
Grant funding can hide your real operating costs. If grants are covering everything, you don't actually know what it costs to run your studio. Before you build a compensation model, you need to understand what your costs look like without grant funding.
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
### Revenue from work
|
||||
|
||||
* Publisher advances and deals
|
||||
* Platform funding – Epic MegaGrants, id@XBOX etc.
|
||||
* Client work and contracts
|
||||
* Direct sales
|
||||
* Crowdfunding
|
||||
* Service/contract work – porting, QA, art assets, sound design for other studios
|
||||
* Adjacent creative work – animation, writing, interactive installations
|
||||
* Knowledge work – workshops, speaking, consulting, teaching
|
||||
|
||||
### Investment and loans
|
||||
|
||||
* Impact investors (like Weird Ghosts and [others](https://gammaspace.slack.com/docs/T024FLYSV/F08HYF76NBV))
|
||||
* Co-op development funds (CWCF's Tenacity Works, regional funds)
|
||||
* Credit unions and community lenders
|
||||
* Traditional bank loans (harder to access for co-ops)
|
||||
|
||||
### Tax credits and incentives
|
||||
|
||||
* Provincial digital media credits
|
||||
* SR&ED
|
||||
* Deductible patronage dividends (specific to co-ops)
|
||||
|
||||
These can be stacked!
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
:::info
|
||||
**Ontario Adaptation:** [S6: Funding & Tax Landscape](/doc/491a3f7f-f423-4db6-a3fb-521895d2468c)
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
*Some content above adapted from Effective Practices in Starting Co-ops*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Credit unions and community lending aren't new ideas!
|
||||
|
||||
They come out of the same cooperative lineages we explored in Session 1: Black communities built mutual aid funds and credit unions when they were excluded from banks. Immigrant communities have practised rotating savings (tandas, susus, ROSCAs) for generations. The cooperative credit union movement itself grew from communities pooling resources because existing financial systems didn't work for them. When you're looking at these options, you're drawing on a long history of people building economic infrastructure for themselves.
|
||||
|
||||
### How do we choose what paths to pursue?
|
||||
|
||||
This needs to be a collective and intentional decision. Developing and maintaining these streams require time and effort that can eat into your actual game development.
|
||||
|
||||
*Coops have different capital options than traditional startups.* Venture capital doesn't work for us – VCs want big returns on their investment and eventually an "exit" (sale), which conflicts with worker ownership. On the other hand, we have access to funding streams that prioritize social impact over profit maximization.
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperation among cooperatives is one of the ICA cooperative principles we talked about a few weeks ago. When you do take on client or contract work, consider prioritizing work with other coops and solidarity economy organizations. This is a way we can build a "trade network" that helps everyone!
|
||||
|
||||
So think about: What funding sources has your studio used or considered? What feels aligned with your values?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 2: Financial transparency – 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
### Why transparency?
|
||||
|
||||
* Financial secrecy is a tool of control
|
||||
* Open books = shared power
|
||||
* When everyone understands the money, everyone can participate in real decisions
|
||||
|
||||
### Basic practices
|
||||
|
||||
* Share monthly financial summaries with all members
|
||||
* Open-book policy (anyone can see the full accounts)
|
||||
* Make all compensation transparent (everyone knows what everyone earns)
|
||||
* Plan budgets collectively – this practice is sometimes called *participatory budgeting*, where members have real decision-making power over how money is allocated
|
||||
|
||||
### Tips for accessibility
|
||||
|
||||
* Use plain language – not everyone speaks accounting.
|
||||
* Summarize number-dense spreadsheets ("we have 8 months of operating costs in the bank")
|
||||
* Create space for questions. There are no embarrassing questions about money – most of us were never taught this stuff.
|
||||
* Visual dashboards can help. Tools like [CoBudget](https://cobudget.com/) or [OpenCollective](https://opencollective.com/) make finances visible, or even just a shared spreadsheet
|
||||
|
||||
### Tell the messy truth
|
||||
|
||||
Transparency isn't just internal. When you're doing public-facing work like crowdfunding, devlogs, community updates, try to be honest about struggles, not just successes. When the story gets ahead of the reality, slow down and catch up.
|
||||
|
||||
### Common resistance
|
||||
|
||||
We have heard – what if competitors see our numbers?
|
||||
|
||||
But for real – what's actually at risk versus what's just discomfort? Most studios aren't competing on secret financial information. Is this fear really about vulnerability?
|
||||
|
||||
*Resource:* [*Seeds for Change – Finance*](https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/finance)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 3: Compensation models – 20 min
|
||||
|
||||
SO! How do cooperatives pay people? There's no single right answer, but whatever you choose should be transparent and collectively decided.
|
||||
|
||||
*we have tools to help you try out these models at* [*coop.love*](https://coop.love)
|
||||
|
||||
### Models to consider
|
||||
|
||||
*Equal pay:* Everyone earns the same hourly or monthly rate regardless of role.
|
||||
|
||||
* Pros: Simple, values all contributions equally, prevents hierarchy creep
|
||||
* Cons: Doesn't account for different needs or experience levels
|
||||
|
||||
*Needs-based:* Pay is adjusted based on members' actual financial needs (rent, dependents, debt, etc.)
|
||||
|
||||
* Pros: Addresses real inequity, mutual care in action
|
||||
* Cons: Requires vulnerability and trust, can feel uncomfortable to discuss
|
||||
|
||||
*Role-based:* Different rates for different roles or skill levels.
|
||||
|
||||
* Pros: Familiar, can help attract specialized skills
|
||||
* Cons: Can recreate the hierarchies you're trying to escape
|
||||
|
||||
*Hybrid approaches:* Base rate + adjustments, or equal base with different hours allocated
|
||||
|
||||
Whatever model you choose, *think about: What do we collectively believe is fair, and can we talk openly about it?*
|
||||
|
||||
### Activity – 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
In studio groups, discuss:
|
||||
|
||||
* What feels fair to you?
|
||||
* What would you need to know about each other to decide on a compensation model?
|
||||
* What conversations would be uncomfortable, and what does that reveal?
|
||||
|
||||
Share back with the group.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 4: Profit-sharing basics – 20 min
|
||||
|
||||
### What is profit-sharing in a coop?
|
||||
|
||||
When the cooperative has surplus (revenue beyond expenses), how does it get distributed? This is fundamentally different from how corporations work.
|
||||
|
||||
### Three types of money flowing to members
|
||||
|
||||
#### **1. Wages**
|
||||
|
||||
Payment for work performed. This is an expense, not profit-sharing.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 2. Patronage returns (or "dividends")
|
||||
|
||||
Distribution of surplus based on members' contribution to the coop – usually measured by hours worked. This is what makes coops different: surplus flows to the people who created it, not to outside investors.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3. Member shares
|
||||
|
||||
Your stake in the coop. Usually a fixed amount you pay to join, returned when you leave.
|
||||
|
||||
***Co-op shares are not corporate equity.*** This is worth thinking about carefully. Co-op shares do not appreciate in value. When a member leaves, their shares are redeemed at par. Whatever they paid in is what they get back. Returns on share capital are capped by the co-op's own governing documents, and in most jurisdictions there's a statutory ceiling on top of that. You cannot attract investment by promising high returns the way a standard corporation can.
|
||||
|
||||
The co-op model is built so that surplus flows back to members through patronage dividends, proportional to work, not capital. That's why patronage returns matter more than your share value, and why the next section is where the real design decisions live.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
:::info
|
||||
In **Ontario**, membership share dividends are capped at prime + 2% under the Co-operative Corporations Act. For the full Ontario funding and tax landscape, see [S6: Funding & Tax Landscape](/doc/491a3f7f-f423-4db6-a3fb-521895d2468c).
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
### Common approaches to distributing surplus
|
||||
|
||||
* *Equal split:* Divide surplus equally among all members
|
||||
* *Hours-based:* Distribute based on hours worked since last distribution
|
||||
* *Hybrid:* Some percentage equal, some percentage hours-based
|
||||
* *Contribution-based:* Weighted by type of contribution (common in coops where some members bring capital, others bring labour)
|
||||
|
||||
### When to distribute versus when to reserve
|
||||
|
||||
This is a *values* conversation!
|
||||
|
||||
* Build a reserve first. How many months of runway do you want before distributing anything? – there's no right answer.
|
||||
* Distribute when you have genuine surplus, not just a good month
|
||||
* Decide collectively if you want cash now or investment in the studio's future?
|
||||
* Some coops allocate a percentage of surplus to a "collective account" for shared needs
|
||||
|
||||
### Incorporation context
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperative legislation is provincial in Canada, so the rules depend on where you incorporate.
|
||||
|
||||
*Ontario:* Worker coops can distribute patronage returns to members based on their labour contribution. There's flexibility in how you structure this – you decide the formula in your bylaws.
|
||||
|
||||
*Federal:* You can also incorporate under the Canada Cooperatives Act, which has its own rules.
|
||||
|
||||
However you structure it, patronage returns flow to workers based on their labour – not to outside shareholders based on their investment. This is the legal mechanism that grounds worker ownership.
|
||||
|
||||
### Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
Any questions about how this would work for your studio?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 5: Who owns what you make together? – 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
We've talked about how surplus flows to members. Buuuut, before you can share surplus you need to decide *who owns* what you're creating together!
|
||||
|
||||
In traditional studios, the company owns everything. Employees have no claim to their creative work. When the studio sells or shuts down, workers walk away with nothing.
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperatives can do this differently with explicit decisions!
|
||||
|
||||
### Questions to discuss as a studio
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Who owns the game?\n– the cooperative as an entity? individual members jointly? a mix?\n– if the coop owns it, what happens to that ownership if someone leaves?
|
||||
2. What about work created before the coop formed?\n– if someone brings existing assets, code, or designs into the project, do they retain individual ownership or contribute it to the collective?\n– how do you value those contributions?
|
||||
3. What happens if someone leaves mid-project?\n– do they retain any ownership stake in work they contributed to?\n– can they take "their" assets (character designs, code they wrote) with them?\n– what's the difference between leaving voluntarily vs. being asked to leave?
|
||||
4. What happens if the studio dissolves?\n– who controls the ip? can one member buy out others?\n– what if you can't agree?
|
||||
|
||||
*Not deciding* means you're going to default to whatever legal structure you eventually incorporate under. Worst case scenario is realizing too late that everyone's expectations were mismatched.
|
||||
|
||||
### A note on sweat equity
|
||||
|
||||
If you haven't started selling your game yet and members are contributing labour without pay, how does that translate to ownership?
|
||||
|
||||
"Sweat equity" is complicated. Some coops track hours and convert them to ownership stakes. Others treat all founding members as equal regardless of hours contributed. However you do it, everyone needs to understand and agree to the approach.
|
||||
|
||||
*Use your Peer Support session to start this conversation. You don't need answers yet – just notice where you're in agreement and where you're uncertain.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing – 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
Financial conversations can be really difficult. They reveal vulnerabilities, and tensions about values, fairness, and trust. There's so much space for conflict to show up here.
|
||||
|
||||
In the next session, we'll build tools for navigating disagreement constructively.
|
||||
|
||||
Think about: *Is there a financial conversation your team has been avoiding?*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Homework (with Peer Supports)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Discuss financial transparency**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. What financial information would feel vulnerable to share? What would you need to feel safe sharing it?
|
||||
2. What have you never been allowed to see at a workplace, and what would have been different if you had?
|
||||
2. **Discuss compensation models**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. What feels fair to you?
|
||||
2. Where do you notice tension between "fair" and "comfortable"?
|
||||
3. What do you need to know about each other's situations to decide together?
|
||||
4. List the non-project labour that happened in the last month (admin, communication, emotional support, onboarding, documentation). How much of that showed up in anyone's compensation?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,430 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: 'Session 7: Conflict Resolution and Collective Care'
|
||||
collection: Cooperative Foundations
|
||||
path: >-
|
||||
Cooperative Foundations/Session Content/Session 7: Conflict Resolution and
|
||||
Collective Care
|
||||
parentDocument: Session Content
|
||||
outlineId: a6c20a77-d4b3-4bd7-9d2d-12c9498e2f8a
|
||||
createdBy: Jennie R.F.
|
||||
---
|
||||
:::info
|
||||
**Peer Supports:** See [Session 7: Conflict Resolution and Collective Care](/doc/146f541d-6ccb-42be-95f7-53ed23d5ed90) for your role during session and this week's studio support meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Intro – 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
Last session we tackled the hardest topic: money. Financial conversations are often where conflict first shows up in a studio. If your compensation discussion went smoothly, great. If it got tense, you now have more information about your teammates!
|
||||
|
||||
We've been taught that conflict means something is wrong. But in healthy cooperatives, disagreement is *valuable data* – it tells us there's an opportunity to create something better for everyone.
|
||||
|
||||
Something to hold as we go through today: Many of us show up to cooperative spaces already scanning for signs we don't belong. We arrive hopeful, and then feel let down when something isn't perfect. This is a pattern shaped by a lifetime of not feeling belonging. Knowing this, we can design our studios and our conversations with more care.
|
||||
|
||||
> Cooperatives don't eliminate conflict: they harness it. Conflict signals where values misalign or needs aren't being met. – Samantha Slade, *Going Horizontal*
|
||||
|
||||
**Addressing conflict head-on is an act of care.** Avoidance lets harm fester.
|
||||
|
||||
And care is not only practiced when something is wrong, but also when things are going okay. Some care is just noticing. Some is just being present consistently.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Check-in – 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
What came up in your compensation models discussion from last session? Where did you notice friction? Or surprised by alignment?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 1: Reframing conflict – 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
### Conflict as care
|
||||
|
||||
* Disagreement is DATA, not failure
|
||||
* Addressing issues directly is caring – avoidance lets harm fester
|
||||
* Healthy teams have conflict; unhealthy teams suppress it
|
||||
|
||||
People who avoid conflict aren't being cooperative. They are invisibilizing their pain. And people who escalate every disagreement into combat are treating conflict as threat rather than neutral signal.
|
||||
|
||||
In community listening projects across Western North Carolina, Cooperate WNC found that the biggest impediment to the success of collective projects was conflict – even more than money. *Even more than money.*
|
||||
|
||||
Unresolved conflict drives people out entirely. Most people who leave cooperative or movement work do so because they are in pain because of conflict that was never addressed. They joined work they cared about, something went wrong, and the resulting loss of trust is what actually burns them out.
|
||||
|
||||
### Conflict transformation
|
||||
|
||||
One way to think about addressing conflict is as an opportunity for *transformation*, not just resolution.
|
||||
|
||||
This idea has deep roots in Indigenous justice traditions, abolition movements, and community accountability practices. These have long understood that resolving a conflict isn't the same as transforming the conditions that produced it. The tools we're working with today come out of those traditions, *even when they aren't always credited.*
|
||||
|
||||
Traditional corporations just want conflict to go away so they can get workers back to their desks at maximum productivity. Conflict is a bottleneck to profits.
|
||||
|
||||
But if we actually looked at the underlying sources of conflict, we'd have to acknowledge the systems that created it.
|
||||
|
||||
> "A given **conflict is just a fruit on the tree of the underlying whole system** it came out of. Those root causes usually have to do with trauma, power structures, and the ways capitalism shapes our relationships. We don't want to just resolve conflicts and brush them under the rug. We want to see each one as a doorway into the underlying causes, so we can **transform them and create deeper trust** through the process." – Zev Friedman, Cooperate Western NC
|
||||
|
||||
### Structural vs. interpersonal
|
||||
|
||||
**Structural conflict:** Recurs no matter who's involved (keeps happening with different people); caused by governance gaps, power imbalances, unclear roles, resource scarcity.
|
||||
|
||||
**Interpersonal conflict:** Communication can resolve it; misunderstandings, style differences, unmet expectations
|
||||
|
||||
Many conflicts are both. The structural issue creates the conditions for interpersonal friction
|
||||
|
||||
Fix the structure first – otherwise you're just managing symptoms.
|
||||
|
||||
It's also useful to ask…
|
||||
|
||||
* Is there a collective impact, or is it personal preference? This helps determine urgency
|
||||
* Is the concern evidence-based or speculative?
|
||||
* > ***Evidence-based:*** *"The last three meetings ran over by 20 minutes."*
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ***Speculative:*** *"I think they don't respect anyone's time."*
|
||||
>
|
||||
> \
|
||||
> *Both might be true! But leading with what you can point to gives the conversation somewhere concrete to start. This isn't about ranking whose reality is more valid. It's about choosing your entry point.*
|
||||
|
||||
Communication tools don't fix governance problems. If the structure is broken, no amount of "I statements" will help!
|
||||
|
||||
#### Watch for the emotional-political conflation trap
|
||||
|
||||
Before diagnosing a conflict as structural or interpersonal, check whether political language is standing in for emotional experience. We might be very good at naming the political or identity-based dimensions of a disagreement but much less practiced at naming the emotional dynamics underneath. When we're afraid or defensive, reaching for political framing can feel like solid ground – but it can also make repair harder.
|
||||
|
||||
In your studio, someone might feel unheard in a creative decision and frame it as a power or equity issue. *Both might be true!* But if you skip the emotional reality and go straight to political framing, you make resolution harder. Try to name both.
|
||||
|
||||
### Some truths of conflict
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Just talking about conflict can create conflict.
|
||||
2. Working through conflict takes time. Sometimes *lots* of time.
|
||||
3. Conflict *will* happen. We promise. Even if you're best friends.
|
||||
|
||||
### Multi-directional accountability
|
||||
|
||||
In cooperatives, accountability runs in multiple directions. Members are accountable to each other and to the collective – but the collective is also accountable to each member. This is different from traditional workplaces where accountability only flows upward to bosses.
|
||||
|
||||
"Holding someone accountable" sounds like something that happens *to* a person who messed up. We all come together and make them answer for what they did. But you can't actually hold someone accountable. Accountability is a process someone *engages in by choice*.
|
||||
|
||||
What you *can* do is create the conditions where accountability is possible. Can someone in your studio admit they messed up without it being a catastrophe? Is there enough trust that people will be honest about impact without it turning into a dehumanizing pile-on? Do people feel seen enough as real, full humans that they can hear hard feedback without shutting down or peace-ing out?
|
||||
|
||||
One thing we've learned from community work is that accountability requires specificity. You can't take responsibility for unspecified offences – it's impossible to address "you caused harm" when no one will tell you what you did. Vague accusations invite shame, defensiveness, capitulation – and none of those are repair. If your studio's process asks someone to account for their behaviour, it needs to name – clearly and specifically – the behaviour being addressed.
|
||||
|
||||
The other thing is that your processes only work if people actually use them. Organizations can have beautiful conflict resolution policies on paper and then bypass them entirely when things get real. When that happens, the processes weren't truly aligned with the group's actual values. If you build accountability structures, commit to using them even (especially) when it's uncomfortable or inconvenient. An organization that abandons its own processes in a crisis is telling its members that those processes were never real.
|
||||
|
||||
When we approach conflict as a structural/movement condition rather than an individual failing, the question shifts from *who is the problem?* to *what is our structure doing that's making this harder?* What would need to change so people could actually be honest about the harm they've caused?
|
||||
|
||||
[*Solidarity Economy Principles*](https://solidarityeconomyprinciples.org/theme-collective-care-relationships-and-accountability/)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 2: Common Conflicts in Game Studios – 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
**1. Workload and contribution**
|
||||
|
||||
* resentment over inequitable workloads
|
||||
* "they're not pulling their weight" (but have you actually talked about capacity?)
|
||||
* different definitions of "done" or "good enough"
|
||||
|
||||
**2. Creative direction**
|
||||
|
||||
* disagreement over game vision or scope
|
||||
* one person's idea keeps "winning"
|
||||
* feeling unheard in creative decisions
|
||||
|
||||
**3. Money and compensation**
|
||||
|
||||
* discomfort with pay transparency (or lack of it)
|
||||
* disagreement over how to split revenue or profit
|
||||
* different financial needs creating different risk tolerances
|
||||
|
||||
**4. Roles and power**
|
||||
|
||||
* original founder holds informal power
|
||||
* unclear decision-making authority
|
||||
* someone taking on a "manager" role without agreement
|
||||
|
||||
**5. Communication and presence**
|
||||
|
||||
* different expectations for availability/response time
|
||||
* remote work misunderstandings
|
||||
* someone going quiet instead of raising concerns
|
||||
|
||||
### Noticing informal power (without it being "conflict")
|
||||
|
||||
Think back on the Informal Hierarchy Check-In from Session 4… those same questions apply here:
|
||||
|
||||
* whose idea did we go with by default?
|
||||
* who gets deferred to?
|
||||
* whose schedule shapes our meeting times?
|
||||
|
||||
*Noticing is not accusing.* Pointing out "hey, we've defaulted to jennie's preferences three times now" isn't conflict. The goal is *noticing before patterns calcify*.
|
||||
|
||||
You can name power accumulation without it being a fight. If you can't – your coop might not have enough capacity for handling conflict.
|
||||
|
||||
### Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
*Do any of these feel familiar? Are they structural, interpersonal, or both?*
|
||||
|
||||
*==What does care look like in your studio when nothing is wrong?==*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 3: Tools for Conflict – 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
"We live in a society based on **disposability**. When we feel bad, we often automatically decide that either we are bad or another person is bad. Both of these moves cause damage and distort the truth, which is that we are all navigating difficult conditions the best we can, and we all have a lot to learn and unlearn. If we want to build a different way of being together in groups, **we have to look closely at the feelings and behaviours that generate the desire to throw people away**. Humility, compassion for ourselves, and compassion for others are antidotes to disposability culture. Examining where we project on others and where we react strongly to others can give us more options when we are in conflict. Every one of us is more complex and beautiful than our worst actions and harshest judgements. Building compassion and accountability requires us to take stock of our own actions and reactions in conflict, and seek ways to treat each other with care even in the midst of strong feelings." – Dean Spade, ["Practicing New Social Relations, Even in Conflict"](https://francesslee.medium.com/practicing-new-social-relations-even-in-conflict-dean-spade-54d4a60fcfed)
|
||||
|
||||
### Loving Justice framework
|
||||
|
||||
Before speaking, ask: Is it Brave? Kind? Honest? Humble?
|
||||
|
||||
### Feedback is a gift
|
||||
|
||||
This sounds like a platitude, but it's a real perspective shift. When someone gives you feedback, they're telling you *how to take better care of them* and how to make your system more functional. They're giving you information you didn't have.
|
||||
|
||||
> "The shift is from perceiving feedback as threat to perceiving feedback as power. It's hard – especially if your pattern is defensiveness. But people who stay in cooperative work long enough often describe a moment when this actually flipped for them." – Zev Friedman, Cooperate Western NC
|
||||
|
||||
### Behaviourally-specific feedback
|
||||
|
||||
Sometimes feedback comes in very ugly wrapping – that doesn't mean there's not a gift inside.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
*In this framework, you are the person who experienced the impact and is giving the feedback.*
|
||||
|
||||
When two people interact, there are three realities:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Intent (other person's reality): Their needs, motives, emotions, intentions
|
||||
2. Behaviour (common reality): Tone, words, gestures, facial expressions – what actually happened
|
||||
3. Impact (your reality): Your reactions and emotions
|
||||
|
||||
Each person can only know 2 of these realities:
|
||||
|
||||
* You know the behaviour you observed and the impact on you.
|
||||
* The other person knows their intent and the behaviour they chose.
|
||||
|
||||
*Neither of you can know the other's inner experience.*
|
||||
|
||||
What we think about others' intentions is only a hunch. And in any case, the problem is usually with a person's behaviour, not their intentions.
|
||||
|
||||
Stay on your side of the net (see diagram above). Moving beyond the 2 realities you understand makes the interaction accusatory.
|
||||
|
||||
"you did x **because you don't respect me**" crosses the net. "when x happened, **i felt disrespecte**d" stays on your side.
|
||||
|
||||
#### What counts as behaviour?
|
||||
|
||||
Behaviour is something you can point to – words, gestures, even silence. A useful test: *If people were shown a video of the interaction, would they agree they saw the same behaviours?*
|
||||
|
||||
Be specific and observable. "You dominated the discussion" is a judgment. "You spoke for 10 of the 15 minutes" is something anyone in the room could have noticed.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
:::tip
|
||||
The goal is to ground your feedback in something the other person can recognize and respond to.
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
### Why this works
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. It is indisputable
|
||||
2. It creates space for mutual understanding without centring intent over impact
|
||||
3. Focusing on behaviour means we're not ascribing feedback to someone's character with the implication that who they are is unchangeable. "You were disrespectful" assigns an inherent value to the person. Naming the specific behaviour gives them something they can actually address.
|
||||
4. All behaviourally specific feedback is **positive** because behaviour is something we can change
|
||||
5. All behaviourally-specific feedback is **data**, and more data is better than less.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Feedback given with the intention of being helpful is always positive
|
||||
|
||||
*Adapted from Connect: Building Exceptional Relationships with Family, Friends, and Colleagues by David Bradford Ph.D. and Carole Robin Ph.D.*
|
||||
|
||||
### Stay with your truth
|
||||
|
||||
What's the part of you that's saying "no"? That's pushing back? Can you speak from that place?
|
||||
|
||||
"A part of me doesn't want to be here because..." "I'm afraid to have this conversation because..."
|
||||
|
||||
Conflict is telling us if there is a problem or a need not being met. Hold onto that while holding onto someone else's truth.
|
||||
|
||||
### Before you raise an issue
|
||||
|
||||
Two things to watch for: shame responses (collapsing into "I'm a terrible person" instead of attending to the other person's experience – name it when you see it), and clarity about what you actually observed vs. interpreted. Before starting a conversation, get clear on: what specific behaviour did I observe? What "no"s are coming up for me? What's my part in this? What do I actually need?
|
||||
|
||||
### Do your best
|
||||
|
||||
People who have experienced being gaslit for their own reality may have an extra difficult time bringing up issues due to shame and trauma. Even just the very act of explaining what is going on can be a source of shame. It's important to remain aware of what histories people might be coming in with and do the best we can with the tools we have.
|
||||
|
||||
*For deeper reading on shame, accountability, and conflict:* [*Building Accountable Communities*](https://bcrw.barnard.edu/building-accountable-communities/) *– Dean Spade, Mariame Kaba, and BCRW.*
|
||||
|
||||
We'll also be sharing even more resources on this particular topic post-session.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 4: Window of Transformation – 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Timing matters:
|
||||
|
||||
Is this person able to hear feedback right now? Are *you* able to give it?
|
||||
|
||||
The "Window of Transformation" is an embodied conflict response model developed by Kai Cheng Thom, inspired by Dan Siegel and Pat Ogden's "Window of Tolerance." It maps different emotional states and responses to conflict based on nervous system activation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### The zones
|
||||
|
||||
**Destructive (High Activation)**
|
||||
|
||||
* Fight/flight responses, overwhelmed, panicked, enraged
|
||||
* Attacking the other person or attacking the relationship
|
||||
* "It's me or them, and I choose me"
|
||||
|
||||
**Window of Transformation (Optimal)**
|
||||
|
||||
* Hearing and integrating feedback with curiosity and compassion
|
||||
* Stretched, challenged, expanding the edge of emotional capacity
|
||||
* Able to hold boundaries while staying connected
|
||||
* "I can honour your truth and honour mine"
|
||||
|
||||
**Performative (Low Activation)**
|
||||
|
||||
* Prioritizing maintaining relationship over integrity
|
||||
* Overwhelmed, insecure, deceiving self or other to "appease"
|
||||
* "Giving in to get along"
|
||||
|
||||
**Fragile/Collapse (Very Low Activation)**
|
||||
|
||||
* Collapsing into shame and blame, feeling victimized
|
||||
* Stuck or immobilized, "freeze"
|
||||
* Unable to engage at all
|
||||
|
||||
### Using this framework
|
||||
|
||||
You're not going to be able to stay in the Window of Transformation permanently! Your goal is to *notice* when you've left it and make choices accordingly.
|
||||
|
||||
* If you're in the Destructive zone: this is not the time to have the conversation – step away. Take a break.
|
||||
* If you're in the performative zone: you might agree to things you don't actually consent to
|
||||
* If you're in fragile/collapse: you need support, not a conflict conversation.
|
||||
|
||||
Practice noticing where others are. If someone is clearly activated or shut down – leave some space.
|
||||
|
||||
> "One thing that is surprising and challenging about the emotional dynamics of conflict is that we do the most harm to others when we are feeling aggrieved, victimized, left out, and/or resentful. It's counterintuitive because those are the moments when we are focused on what others did wrong and how we are hurting. But those are the times we are most likely to do something harmful, like go and write the really messed up email to somebody, treat somebody with a cold shoulder, gossip negatively about people in our group or about another group in town, post a bunch of stuff on Instagram that's really inflammatory, or violate someone's privacy." – Dean Spade, "Navigating Conflict in Movement Spaces" (Nonprofit Quarterly)
|
||||
|
||||
The moments you ***feel most justified*** are the moments you're most likely to cause harm. If you're feeling like the wronged party, that's exactly when to pause and ask a trusted person whether your planned response is the right scale.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Activity – 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
*==Breakouts in groups of about 3.==*
|
||||
|
||||
Here are some example scenarios:
|
||||
|
||||
* So-and-so keeps talking over me in meetings
|
||||
* One person keeps having to do admin work and is left out of game dev chats
|
||||
* I didn't realize we were doing X. How can we make sure we're all on the same page in the future?
|
||||
|
||||
Choose a *small* conflict. (Although even small conflicts have a way of bubbling up and becoming giant).
|
||||
|
||||
### Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
* Is this structural, interpersonal, or both?
|
||||
* Using behaviourally-specific feedback, what would you actually say? (Stay on your side of the net – what you observed, what impact it had)
|
||||
* Apply the Loving Justice questions (Brave? Kind? Honest? Humble?)
|
||||
* What would make this issue easier to raise?
|
||||
* Notice what zone of transformation you're in
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Escalation as Care – 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Escalation is NOT failure! it's recognizing that some conflicts *need more support* than a 1:1 can provide.
|
||||
|
||||
### Levels of escalation
|
||||
|
||||
#### Direct conversation
|
||||
|
||||
Talk to the person yourself. Use the tools we just practiced – behaviourally specific feedback, staying on your side of the net, checking what zone you're in before you start.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Escalate bandwidth
|
||||
|
||||
Escalate the bandwidth of the channel – if you're on Slack asynchronous text, move to Slack synchronous text at a planned time. From synchronous chat to an audio Huddle, audio to video. *Credit:* [*Joshua Vial*](https://joshuavial.com/loomio-conflict/)
|
||||
|
||||
#### De-Escalation of bandwidth
|
||||
|
||||
Some teams may find a "de-escalation of bandwidth" (moving from video/audio to direct messages) more accessible or appropriate depending on the situation. This best applies in cases where the conflict is overloading or overwhelming someone and making them more activated/triggered.
|
||||
|
||||
Stepping back can be a powerful tool for resolving conflict, but text messages can also be misinterpreted more easily than in-person or video/audio communication, so make the best choice for you at the moment.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Bring in a third party
|
||||
|
||||
This should be a trusted person who can facilitate – not to judge or decide, but to help both people hear each other. This could be another studio member, a Peer Support, or someone outside the studio you all trust. But be careful, bringing friends in can also add more complications.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Formal process
|
||||
|
||||
Use your documented conflict resolution policy. This is for when informal approaches haven't worked, when the conflict affects the whole studio, or when someone needs formal protections.
|
||||
|
||||
Often formal conflicts trace back to unintegrated objections: concerns that were raised but never properly addressed. Preventing this requires actually working through tensions when they come up.
|
||||
|
||||
*The goal isn't to always end up at the formal process. You just want to have it so everyone knows it exists. This can make informal resolution easier.*
|
||||
|
||||
We'll share Baby Ghosts' conflict resolution policies and procedures as a template you can adapt. It includes: who initiates the process, what documentation happens, timelines, and what happens if resolution isn't reached.
|
||||
|
||||
* Resource: [Baby Ghosts Conflict Resolution Procedures](https://publish.obsidian.md/baby-ghosts-corp-docs/Public/Procedures/Conflict+Resolution+Procedures)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Trust comes from repair, not avoidance
|
||||
|
||||
The Gottman Institute found that couples don't build trust by avoiding conflict. They build trust by having conflict and then repairing. The repair is what demonstrates: You matter to me enough that you're worth repairing with. I'm going to do the work.
|
||||
|
||||
The same is true in cooperative work. Being willing to risk rupture, and then showing up for repair – that's what creates the trust. "Oh, you really did have my back when it mattered. You really were willing to receive feedback."
|
||||
|
||||
> "People who stay put in conflict rather than run away are signalling they're ready for deeper work." – *Zev Friedman, Cooperate Western NC on John M. Gottman Ph.D., The Science of Trust*
|
||||
|
||||
### Hot tips
|
||||
|
||||
* Have a policy and procedures in place *before* your next crisis
|
||||
* You can use Baby Ghosts' template as a starting point, but collectively review and modify it to your specific values, needs, and context
|
||||
* Every member should be intimately familiar with these documents
|
||||
* Know who is responsible for supporting members in conflict
|
||||
* Operationalize your values around conflict resolution by including it in your budget, reserving time in retreats and meetings, and signing up for relevant training.
|
||||
* Practice on the small stuff. Don't wait for a crisis. Every small repair is a rehearsal for the harder conversations. If you can't talk about someone consistently showing up late to meetings, you definitely can't talk about power dynamics or compensation disputes. Start where it's low-stakes.
|
||||
|
||||
Soul Fire Farm, an agricultural coop in New York, uses a peer-to-peer "Real Talk" process to give direct feedback. We'll share the link: [Soul Fire Farm Real Talk](https://agriculturaljusticeproject.org/toolkit/resources/relations/soulfire-real-talk/). This is a great framework if you want to build in regular feedback on a regular basis.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing – 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
*"I believe that the most important skill for interpersonal conflict is being able to balance apparently contradictory concepts and perspectives in one's mind and body: Compassion for the other, compassion for ourselves; staying open to change and taking accountability; holding strong boundaries and protecting ourselves."* - Kai Cheng Thom
|
||||
|
||||
You've now built tools for governance, decision-making, financial transparency, and conflict. That's a lot. And next session is our last! CRY
|
||||
|
||||
Some of these conversations may have been uncomfortable. You might be still thinking about things that came up this week.
|
||||
|
||||
We'll step back and assess what you've created together. what's working/fragile/what comes next after this program ends?
|
||||
|
||||
*Between now and then: If hard conversations came up this week, don't let them drift away. Use your Peer Support session to keep working through them.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Exercises
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Name one avoided tension** – What conflict or tension has your studio been avoiding? It doesn't have to be big – small avoidances are good to examine too. What makes it tough to bring up? Can you practice raising it?
|
||||
2. **Review the conflict resolution template together** – Read [Baby Ghosts' conflict resolution policy](https://publish.obsidian.md/baby-ghosts-corp-docs/Public/Policies/Conflict+Resolution+Policy). As a studio, discuss: what would you adapt for your context, and what's missing for you?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: 'Session 8: Self-Evaluation and Pathways'
|
||||
collection: Cooperative Foundations
|
||||
path: >-
|
||||
Cooperative Foundations/Session Content/Session 8: Self-Evaluation and
|
||||
Pathways
|
||||
parentDocument: Session Content
|
||||
outlineId: 8c4f622c-661b-4e40-bb59-446b8b37cf4b
|
||||
createdBy: Jennie R.F.
|
||||
---
|
||||
> **Peer Supports:** See [PS Guide: Session 8 — Self-Evaluation and Pathways](/doc/ps-guide-session-8-self-evaluation-and-pathways-3hukBAaITz) for your role during session and this week's studio support meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
## Welcome
|
||||
|
||||
* Slide: Tag Yourself
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Intro - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
This is the last session. Wahoo! Where did the time go?!
|
||||
|
||||
Last week we talked about conflict. Some of you may have had difficult conversations since then. That's the good stuff, as eileen would say. It's okay if things feel unfinished or messy. You don't have to have it all figured out by now. We hope you feel you have the tools and the trust to keep figuring it out together.
|
||||
|
||||
What happens next is going to be harder than the program. You'll ship a game, or you won't. Money will come in, or it won't. Life will get busy. And the governance practices you've built over these weeks can quietly erode if you stop doing them.
|
||||
|
||||
You might skip a governance meeting because you're crunching… then another. Someone starts "just handling" the finances because it's easier than showing someone else how to do it. Six months later someone asks "why are we even a co-op?" and no one has a good answer. This is the most common way cooperatives fail.
|
||||
|
||||
The post-program supports we're about to talk about exist to keep up your momentum and help you build your collaborative muscles - and remember the "why."
|
||||
|
||||
And today we pause to reflect on what you've built and where you're headed. We have two assessments - individual and studio - to help you see how far you've come and clarify your next steps.
|
||||
|
||||
And then we'll celebrate as a group!
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Check-in - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
*What has shifted for you since Session 0?* *Has your emotional connection to the studio changed over the program?*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Self-assessment overview - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
It's easy to get into a groove and forget to check in with yourself. But clarity of self-reflection makes you a better collaborator. Most of the work is making the time and space to sit with your thoughts before writing them down. That's what prevents decisions made in haste or fear and builds intentional practice instead.
|
||||
|
||||
We have two assessments for you today. The first is personal and private – just for you. The second is collective – you'll complete it as a studio, and Baby Ghosts will review it to understand where you're at and how to support you going forward. This is also important feedback for us, so please be honest about what worked and what didn't.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Personal self-assessment - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
**This is private.** Baby Ghosts won't see it. Your studio won't see it unless you choose to share.
|
||||
|
||||
This helps you get a clearer sense of your personal and professional baseline. Be on the same page with yourself before you meet with your team. Where have you grown? Where do you still feel uncertain? What do you need from your collaborators that you haven't asked for yet?
|
||||
|
||||
\[TODO-06: Link to assessment form when ready. Tracked in Asana.\]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Studio self-assessment - 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
**This is collective.** You'll complete it together as a studio, and Baby Ghosts will review it to understand where you're at and how to support you.
|
||||
|
||||
The template is on your studio Miro board. You'll rate where your studio is on each of seven areas using this scale:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Considering/Reflecting** – You've thought about it individually but haven't discussed it as a team yet.
|
||||
2. **Discussing Collectively** – You're talking about it together but haven't made decisions.
|
||||
3. **Brainstorming** – You're actively generating ideas and exploring options.
|
||||
4. **Sifting/Sorting** – You're narrowing down, making choices, working toward alignment.
|
||||
5. **First Draft of Documentation** – You have something written down – a policy, a process, a shared agreement.
|
||||
|
||||
The seven areas map to the arc of this program:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Values, purpose & alignment
|
||||
2. Governance
|
||||
3. Decision-making & meetings
|
||||
4. Equitable economics
|
||||
5. Conflict & repair
|
||||
6. Program reflection
|
||||
7. What's next
|
||||
|
||||
Be honest with each other. A "2" in conflict resolution after eight weeks means you know where to focus. This assessment also helps you understand if your studio is ready to continue together, to pause, or to part ways. All of these are valid outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What's next - 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
Two questions to start: *What do you want to focus on as a studio going forward? What's your plan for revisiting your governance and values after the program ends – and who's responsible for scheduling it?*
|
||||
|
||||
### Stay connected: Ghost Guild
|
||||
|
||||
When the program wraps up, your weekly Peer Support sessions end – but your Peer Support isn't going anywhere. They're still part of the community, and many are happy to hear from you as you hit milestones or run into challenges.
|
||||
|
||||
Going forward, your home base for support is the Ghost Guild – Baby Ghosts' alumni community. Program alumni are automatically enrolled. Membership includes free access to talks and workshops, community building with solo devs, early access to resources, and opportunities to become a Peer Support or contribute to the knowledge commons.
|
||||
|
||||
### Keep practicing
|
||||
|
||||
Build in a revisit of your values and governance documents. Quarterly is ideal, twice a year at minimum. Put it on the calendar before you leave today. Ask: are we still practicing what we said we would? Where have we drifted? What needs updating? The studios that stay cooperatives are the ones that keep asking these questions.
|
||||
|
||||
Build in a self-accountability practice too. Values drift can happen quietly. To prevent it, make a regular habit of asking yourself: Did my choices today align with who I want to be? This can be as simple as a five-minute reflection at the end of the week, or a quick message to a collaborator: "Hey, I was short with you yesterday. That wasn't who I want to be. Sorry." You've been building this muscle all program. Stay strong! – put it alongside your governance review on the calendar.
|
||||
|
||||
### Upcoming workshops
|
||||
|
||||
We offer standalone workshops throughout the year on topics we've introduced here – and some we haven't had time to cover in the program. These are included with Ghost Guild membership or available for public registration. Past and upcoming workshops include: Legal Structures & By-Laws, Business Planning, Grantwriting & Alt Funding, Social Impact, Advanced Governance, Miro / Tools Workshop, Why We're Here: Telling Your Studio's Story, and Process Development.
|
||||
|
||||
### Interested in becoming a Peer Support?
|
||||
|
||||
Some of you may be interested in supporting future cohorts as a Peer Support. This is a paid role and a meaningful way to build capacity in the community – you already know firsthand what studios go through, and that experience is exactly what makes a great PS.
|
||||
|
||||
Here's what the role involves: you'd attend all program sessions alongside your assigned studios, facilitate weekly peer support meetings with one studio, and participate in PS training before the cohort starts. It's approximately 4-6 hours per week during the 10-week program. If you're someone who found yourself energized by the collaborative work, who notices group dynamics, and who cares about holding space for others – this might be a great fit. Talk to us after the session or reach out anytime.
|
||||
|
||||
### Incorporation
|
||||
|
||||
If your studio is ready to incorporate as a cooperative, we can point you toward resources and service providers who understand cooperative structures. We don't provide legal advice, but we can help connect you with people who do.
|
||||
|
||||
And a reminder: you don't have to incorporate to work cooperatively. Many studios practice cooperative values and governance long before – or without ever – filing incorporation papers. The practices matter more than the paperwork.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
:::tip
|
||||
**Ontario Adaptation:** [S8: Incorporation & Pathways](/doc/b84e47d5-acb3-4403-ba6e-b625f5bafcc7)
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
:::info
|
||||
**See:** [Incorporation Readiness Checklist](/doc/6d9f1171-00bd-428d-aec9-8e448c8caa2d)
|
||||
|
||||
:::
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\[TODO-14: Develop resources, service providers, and readiness assessment - tracked in Asana.\]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Collaborative Zine Making - 35 min
|
||||
|
||||
*eileen leads this activity.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing - 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
You're about to re-enter an industry that defaults to hierarchy. Lawyers will draft conventional corporate structures, funders will ask for a single point of contact, and publishers will want to know "who's in charge." Your own teammates – under pressure – may reach for the familiar. This is expected, and it's not your fault – it's how we've learned to operate!
|
||||
|
||||
*There is no self-made entrepreneur.* Everyone is embedded in community – cooperatives just make that explicit. You've spent eight weeks building the muscle to do that together. Keep using it!
|
||||
|
||||
*What's something you're proud of from the program?* *What conversation did you have that you wouldn't have had otherwise?*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Homework
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Complete your personal assessment** – Do this before your studio meets. This is private, just for you.
|
||||
2. **Complete your studio assessment together** – Meet as a studio and work through the template on your Miro board. This comes back to Baby Ghosts so we can understand where you're at and how to support you going forward.
|
||||
|
||||
Complete the studio self-assessments by **June 10, 2026** and send it to hello@babyghosts.fund. Baby Ghosts will be in touch with suggestions, ideas, and encouragement.
|
||||
|
||||
And stay in touch. You're part of this community now. 👻👻👻
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue