Draft of a Conversational Code of Conduct
The draft Conversational Code of Conduct below was created as part of a leadership workshop for staff and faculty at Lehigh Carbon Community College. It is based on a presentation by Craig Weber and his book "Conversational Capacity".
How can we use this? Modify this to create a YARCCE version?
Conversational Code of Conduct
Directions: Below are the statements that were from the group responses at the PLI meeting that are matched with corresponding statements from Craig Weber’s book (provided by Eike). The bold statements are those statements that the group created, while the italicized statements are those that were provided by Eike. Ultimately, the group felt most comfortable using the statements that label the behavior we would like to see (the statements in bold) over behavior that we do not want to see (the statements labeled in italics). They are matched here to make sure that all our “bases” are covered. I think the italics statements should be deleted on the final version. There are also some extra statements in bold for the group to review, but it wasn’t clear that they fit into Craig’s original statements (which is probably fine, but you will notice there is no match there). We need to consider the following: 1. Are all areas covered? 2. Are any areas redundant? 3. How does the wording need to be “cleaned up” to be consistent from point to point (ie. are we going to start each point with a verb, etc.) Statement Purpose: The purpose of the Conversational Code of Conduct is to create and maintain an open, balanced and constructive dialogue to generate an enhanced, constructive environment for exchange of ideas, information and viewpoints to more cohesively further the collegial mission and goals of Lehigh Carbon Community College. 1. Have evidence to support statements that are made. Killing discussion or stoking an argument by putting forward your idea as if it’s an absolute fact
2. Commit to appropriately speaking up when you disagree. Sacrificing candor by feigning agreement Downplaying or sugar-coating an important issue Avoiding important issues by trying to be nice at the expense of being effective
3. We would like to have an understanding that different views are valued and contribute to sound decision-making. Treating people who see the world differently as non-team players, malcontents, or nuisances.
4. Be mindful of how your non-verbal communication is being received by others. Limiting the possibility for people to disagree with you by wielding your expertise like a weapon
5. Respect everyone’s contribution and process them before you offer negative feedback. Scaring people away from the table by acting aggressively from a position of authority
6. Every meeting will have clearly stated goals and objectives and when those are met, the meeting is concluded. Covering up important ideas, views, data, and concerns
7. Consider everyone’s perspective for followup after the meeting. People feel they are being heard. Use a parking lot – we can’t do it today, but it will not be forgotten. Limiting dialogue and learning by dismissing or discounting views with which you don’t agree
8. When you have an opportunity to express your view on an issue without interruption. Shutting down open dialogue by acting aggressively from any position in a group
9. When discussion goes off topic, the meeting leader will refocus the group back to the topic.
10. A clear agenda sent out with the meeting invite with the code of conduct attached.