[Dialogue] Decision making, consensus

[PSchrijnen at aol.com]

Colleagues,
 
here are a few observations:
 
1. Christine and I have reflected at times about our decision making as a  
couple. It seems that the times have been rare that we actually have come  
jointly to a decision. The big decisions about things like children, their  
schools, where to live, what we do, have mostly been a decision by one of us.  The 
other was then invited to support that decision. The decisions worked  if they 
were based on our con-sensus, our shared mind and heart. 
 
2. The first step in consensus building seems to be the building  of a shared 
understanding of relevant information. That is hard given the  complexity of 
sharing information fully and the difficulty of truly 'getting'  what another 
person says or means. So often decision making or consensus  building is 
categorised as a political rather than a cognitive process 
 
3. Effective decision making requires clarity about the roles and  
responsibilities of the people involved in the decision making process. In the  Order we 
left this to implicit understanding of gifts, talents and commitments.  The 
implicitness avoided awkward feedback, but didn't prevent a lot of people  
feeling dis-enfranchised. 
 
4. I have found it useful to separate three phases in the decision making  
process: 1. the divergent phase,  2. the convergent phases, 3.  the naming the 
decision phase. In the first phase one listens to  the widest possible group, 
the democratic dynamic. In the second phase a  recommendation is then developed 
by the experts, the oligopoly dynamic. The  leader then has the job to make 
the decision which reflects the broadest set of  perspective, the expert view 
and the bigger picture, which is represented or  'defended' by the (symbolic) 
leader. The Bay of Pigs White House decision making  seems to have followed 
this process. 
 
5. Written in the constitution of a few (Catholic) European countries is  the 
procedure that when a bench of judges sits, the first one to speak is the  
youngest, or the one with the least experience. Then the others chip in, and  
finally the President of the bench. This idea was first introduced in the Rule  
of Benedict in the 6th century. It seems to reflect the 3 phases mentioned in  
point 4. The Dutch took this notion out of their constitution. A sad mistake. 
 The Spanish still have it, as was pointed out to me by a Spanish judge who  
stayed with our family to learn English a few years ago. Does anyone  know if 
the American Supreme Court uses this process in their decision  making?
 
So three keys
1. Structure the process as three steps
2. See the first step as primarily a cognitive process, a  process of shared 
learning, data gathering. The second and third phase are  primarily political 
in the best sense of that word. 
3.  Decision making and consensus building require role  clarity of those 
involved in any part of the 3 steps. 
 
As Jeanette suggested, who is going to pull all of this  together?
 
Paul 



   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20071016/a85e9940/attachment.html