That hiring people idea sounds useful, if it came down to it, but I would hope it would not be necessary. With a strong group of long-term residents it is pretty easy to give visitors an orientation where what is expected gets spelled out.
One thing I know is, not everyone is good at cooking but everyone knows how to clean. One thing that is helpful is to figure out how much maintenance is needed for X people living in X space so it can be determined where a baseline is, because dirty dishes in the sink is pretty obvious but what about keeping the bathrooms clean? What about laundry for commonly used items like dish towels? Also, it is a valid point to have someone monitor the food supply so it stretches far enough between runs to the store, or stays within budget.
One balance that has to be looked at with a group (I think I have mentioned this before, not sure) is how to balance the physical organization with the atmosphere or “vibes” in the household. I think is it important for everyone to consciously agree that they are of equal importance. Some people are naturally neater than others. But some neat and orderly people get upset and unhappy when their standard is not shared by others in the group. What do you do if that person is always kind of angry at the others for not pulling their weight? And what if those less concerned about physical order resent being told to clean up all the time? This is why these things need to be talked out - because there is no one way to get it right and the correct balance varies depending on the specific individual residents.
You could make a kind of grid where one line goes from industrious to laid back, and the other line goes from happy to not happy (or something like that). In the old “grasshopper and ant” story, which for me was always presented from the ant point of view, industriousness always takes precedent over good feeling because not being industrious means you might starve or freeze. But who wants to be pissed off all the time? But again, someone can be friendly and happy but always the last to get up off one’s tail and chip in. I would describe that as a form of passive/aggressive behavior.
Also, in my experiences in group living, I found that these conversations were more needed in the earlier days when we were just figuring out how to live together. After a few years, we became better at keeping the physical and mental planes in balance. Plus, living in the country especially, but in the city too, it becomes clear to all before long that you have to work hard just to survive. It’s just that if one loses one’s sense of humor in the process, then what exactly has been gained?
One thing in discussing these matters that I think is important is to keep the one-to-one arguments under a kind of control by agreeing that matters of physicality and the group atmosphere are everyone’s business. And that it will go better if a kind of quorum is present so others who might have less emotional investment in a given encounter can provide perspective. Even just one other person can thus provide a “fair witness” function. In practice, this means that when arguments erupt, or when there is an excessive “muttering under the breath” resentment, that, given it becomes inefficient to stop everything and spend the day sorting it all out, it is important to not let things go too far. When you get to the point that when talking something over becomes unavoidable it might be a conversation that generates more heat than light, so to speak. Thus, it will go better when others are present.
It is is an ongoing problem that doesn’t take care of itself, then I suggest calling a meeting with all hands to talk it over so the balance might be found.
) I think you’re right that there is an element of self selection that occurs. People willing to take that step into the unknown are often more likely to be adventurous when it come to food.