[Dialogue] Consensus Pull-together

[John Cock]

Since I'm the youngest, I'll go first.
 
I think the consensus is that Jeanette of Australia pulls it together, with
a context at the beginning. 
 
John

  _____  

From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of PSchrijnen at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 8:26 AM
To: dialogue at wedgeblade.net
Subject: [Dialogue] Decision making, consensus


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/20071016/3d9e703b/attachment.html