Findings on the Continued Use of One Person Coordination
Field notes on the group that produces one coordinator through collective inaction and then relies on that coordinator indefinitely.
Observation: Day 1
A group message is sent requesting input on a plan. The message is seen by all seven members. Three members react with an emoji. Two members do not respond. One member says "sounds good." One member asks a clarifying question.
The clarifying question requires a decision. Nobody makes the decision. The person who asked the clarifying question is now, by default, running the process.
Observation: Day 3
The coordinator sends a follow-up message. Four members respond immediately. Three members respond after being mentioned by name.
Under the governing rule, a group chat decision is not final until silence has been interpreted as consent. Silence has been interpreted as consent to the coordinator continuing.
Observation: Day 7
The coordinator has sent nine messages. The group has collectively sent thirty-two. The thirty-two messages contain: twelve agreements, eight clarifying questions, four unrelated observations, three reactions only, three questions directed at the coordinator, and two messages that arrived after the decision was already made.
The one person coordination creates one extra message that nobody expected to answer. People begin responding to the social meaning of messages instead of their content.
Observation: Day 14
A second plan is proposed. Someone other than the coordinator offers to organize it. This offer is met with enthusiasm.
By day 17, the original coordinator is running the second plan as well. Nobody can explain how this happened.
Finding
Eventually the group maintains a complete communication system for avoiding one direct sentence.
The direct sentence is: "I will handle this."
The group is functional. The coordination works. The coordinator is tired. These facts are observed but not discussed. The alarm level is measured.