Loading...
The issue of membership fees is difficult to talk about because it is a small amount. Before it spreads to people's fault, I've organized a way to organize it with rules.
The money was saved, but it was late to share where it was spent.
Information gaps increase suspicion.
3 lines published once a month: **Balance/Where used/Next plan**
People who come often and people who come sometimes pay the same amount.
When perceived fairness is broken, relationships become cold.
Dualization: **Basic membership fee + attendee fee (same day)**
There's always one person who pays for me and doesn't say anything.
If payments accumulate, it becomes a burden rather than consideration.
Serial system + deadline: **“A this month, B next month”**
Because jokes are not a solution, but a procrastination.
This means that trust is already being shaken.
This is the stage where you express your dissatisfaction with actions instead of words.
Disclosure before being asked reduces conflict.
Example: “At the end of each month, share 3 lines of balance/usage.”
The sense of fairness improves.
Example: “Basically, it is shared, and on the day, it is calculated by attendees.”
Distributes the burden across the system.
Example: “This month A, next month B.”
End non-payment before it becomes a relationship problem.
Example: “Please do me a favor before noon tomorrow.”
Try saying: “I am sharing this month’s membership fee details. Balance / usage / next plan is as follows.”
Try saying: “To be fair, how about dividing it into basic membership fee + daily cost?”
Try saying: “It’s a burden if the payments accumulate, so from now on, let’s use a sequential system.”
A. When you create rules, you’re talking about the ‘system’ rather than ‘people’, so it’s much less inconvenient.
It's comfortable because it's close, but the neighborhood relationship becomes more sensitive because it's close. We have organized the ‘distance control’ rule to prevent trivial words and actions from turning into misunderstandings.
The reason there is a lot of talk about meetings but no conclusion is mostly due to the ‘decision structure’ rather than the ‘who’. We have compiled a consensus routine that is fast and hassle-free.
Since the neighborhood is close, once it spreads, it is difficult to reverse. We've put together safety measures to prevent chatting from destroying relationships.
The neighborhood already has a strong network of relationships, so new members are more cautious. We organized a structure that blends naturally without excessive consideration.