[Dialogue] Consensus pull-together

[Lifeline248 at aol.com]

Greetings!   After I saved what follows for myself, I tried to send it to the 
listserves yesterday as an Attachment, but it wouldn't go through.   It's the 
input from Paul, Cynthia, Frank, Herman, George, Nancy, Jim B., and Jim W.   
Since you can copy and enlarge it,   I'm sending it in small print to see if 
that helps it get through.
Lucille Chagnon

Paul Schrijnen

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?


Cynthia Vance

I've used this in my facilitation classes for quite a few years; Gary Forbes 
and I created the definition.   The other information I gathered over the 
years.

Consensus Definition:   
“Consensus is that everyone has participated in, understands, and is 
committed to supporting the group decision.”

A lasting agreement has 3 components:
1.   Content Satisfaction    “I understand the decision; I can support the 
group decision.”
This is more powerful than the usual “I can live with the decision”.   It 
means that given the time we have to discuss and the need to make a decision by 
a certain time/date,   this is the best
decision we can make now as a group.    As in a wedding when people are asked 
to 'speak now or forever   hold their peace'. It is also a commitment not to 
downgrade the decision after the meeting.
2.   Procedural Satisfaction:   “I participated in the process.”
I offered up my ideas and people listened to me; facilitation processes were 
utilized to maximize participation.
3.    Psychological Satisfaction:   “I felt I was treated with respect during 
the process.”
No one put me down; the facilitator protected me so that my ideas and 
explanation of my ideas were heard and considered seriously.


Frank Bremner

I have two images about "consensus" which may help in the current discussion. 
  I too have noticed how "consensus" can silence the dissenter, or the person 
with a "but .....", or the person with a "po" (Edward de Bono's name for an 
item that wopn't fit into "yes" or "no").   I've been thinking about this 
through my work with high school students, using ICA/ToP methods, at school level.  
 And then again working with high school students at state level, where 
sitting around talking ("blah!") was "the method" being used by those in charge.
 
 (1)
At a LENS seminar in Adelaide in 1974 or so, David Zahrt used the idea of a 
"map" to illustrate "consensus".   This really grabbed my imagination.   The 
"consensus" is a map of "the lay of the land".
 
(2)
In the 80s, when working with high school students, I developed the "map of 
the lay of the land" to include the disagreements, the fuzzy bits that wouldn't 
flatten out, the edgy bits that wouldn't straighten up.   In other words, the 
consensus could be a "map orf the may of the land" that represented the real 
"lay of the land".   The participants then have to own that "lay of the land" 
as belonging to the whole group and then work with it. 
 
The result might be something very articulate, and containing elements of 
paradox or natural tensions, and might emerge during the planning (or whatever) 
session.   Or the result might be something for a team to go away and work on.
 
At least, with the "'lay of the land" in front of them, participants can 
start to see the interfaces or connections between various viewpoints - "what do 
we have in common?"   How do these items relate to each other?   Is there "A 
and B" rather than "A or B"?
 
For me, taking this approach got around the (often false and imposed) urgency 
of "forming a consensus now", which can lead to only the loudest voices being 
heard, or the status quo (also known as "the party line") being reinforced.   
And on one hand bringing some pre-prepared model was OK ("having a model"), 
and one the other hand it wasn't (it was "lobbying").
Taking the approach in (1) and (2) above honoured all participants and all 
contributions.   Even the slightest "but ..." could hint at a breakthrough or a 
new insight.   It's like Paul Dirac thinking (out in left field) "Why can't we 
have negative matter?", and laying the groundwork for the theory of 
anti-matter and black holes.


Herman Greene

As I understand it, consensus was developed with the idea that everyone's 
voice could be heard and even one person could stop a decision from being made. 
As practiced in the order when I was there, that poor dissenting voice was 
drowned out by “Don't block the consensus.”

 Tom Hayden once commented on his experience of consensus in the civil rights 
days. What he found was that only the charismatic leaders had the power to 
name the consensus. Everyone waited until one of the charismatic leaders spoke 
and then people followed and the dissenters were crushed. Not all of you 
experienced it this way in the Oder, but I did. No one really wanted to listen to 
dissenting views and those that followed convention had the most power to name 
the “consensus.”

 At least in a vote, the minority's objection goes on record. Yet, as John 
Montgomery indicates those in the majority can rule and believe that a plurality 
of votes is a mandate from Heaven. In the Southern Baptist Church 
conservative churches packed the house and stole a denomination, so yes the majority can 
tyrannize a minority in democracy. Further in the present administration we 
have seen a disregard of the minority when the President's party exercised 
majority power in Cogress (even now with the ability to filibuster).

The thing is that bodies do have to make decisions and there are 
disagreements. It doesn't follow that if people reason together they will eventually come 
to a reasoned consensus. This is theoretically possible in like-minded groups, 
but as indicated in my Order experience what happens is that a ruling 
conventionalism or charismatic leader dominates. I have heard that Quakers make this 
work but by having unbelievably long meetings sometimes. Is it really the goal 
of decision-making that everyone come to agreement?

I appreciated Nancy's practical example in a group where some decision had to 
be made. There are many approaches and the goal after all is free expression 
and exchange of ideas with a goal of making the best decision. Different 
methods will work in different situations.

As I indicated in my earlier e-mail, on a practical level most decisions in 
small bodies are made by consensus. There are times, however, when there are 
genuine disagreements . . . like whether or not to build the new sanctuary . . . 
for which there may be no genuinely consensual right answer. Without thinking 
this through further at this time, I think then democracy is good because it 
allows a decision to be made without papering over the disagreement. Democracy 
is not good, however when there is not a process that allows to speak, and 
equally or more important a process that enables people to listen in genuine 
dialogue. This is what we all strive for.

I really cannot imagine how “consensus is a step forward for the World 
Council of Churches. Have these people really reached consensus on such issues as 
gay right? Are these people really content to let one single delegate block a 
decision, or will they rise up and say “Don't block the consensus!”


George Holcombe

May I ask for a little more clarity and perhaps some education for myself 
from those commenting on consensus as a decisional method? What I heard was that 
consensus could be used by the majority to crush the minority, and that a more 
evolved process goes beyond consensus method. I would like to know what 
decision method can not be misused, and when we talk about processes that goes 
beyond setting around a table and explaining, if experimenting is somehow not part 
of achieving consensus. Just what would you call it?

My experience has been that there are no processes that cannot be misused, 
but some seemed rigged for the majority (Roberts Rules, simple votes), though 
even there some genuine decisions arise. Consensus seems more aimed toward the 
future, and can allow for a multiplicity of views. I have found no better way 
to get things on "top of the table." The hardest thing for any organization to 
do is to make a "real" decision. I've been impressed with both the corporate 
and non-profit world I've had opportunity to experience have leaned toward some 
form of consensus making, some more complex than another.


Nancy Lanphear 

As we were forming our community of Songaia, we decided that we would use 
consensus for decision making. However, we have the gift of having a couple of 
folks who hold us to hearing and honoring each individual voice in the process 
and the concern that Herman voiced is acknowledged. Of course, this sometimes 
works better than others, but we put energy into making it work. Nearly 8 years 
later, we have another way of processing - it is called a decision board. An 
individual or committee can write a proposal, send it out by email and post it 
on the decision board. The name of each community member is listed on the 
proposal followed by 3 columns: 1) I agree, 2) I need more discussion, 3) I will 
help fund the project. If there are folks (1 or more) who need more 
discussion, we set a time and gather folks to work it through. Folks who want to see the 
project happen might help to fund it or we request money from our abundant 
fund to carry out the project. There are times when folks will stand aside but 
not block the decision but usually we work at the proposal so that people are 
ready to go with it. There continue to be decisions that we need to talk 
through as a whole group - and so we do.

Let me give a fun example: Early on in our life together, one family wanted 
to have chickens. The chickens would provide us with eggs, an education about 
where our eggs and chicken meat came from (not the supermarket), and how it 
gets to our table (killing), and fertilizer for the garden. Several folks in the 
community were quite concerned about the noise (roosters), some did not want 
the smell around the community. No one really wanted the chicken coop in their 
"back yard. About 2 years ago, 3 folks stepped forward with a proposal - no 
roosters and the coop (a chicken tractor*) would be placed in the garden (not 
really in anyone's back yard). Well - there was still a concern about the 
original two issues plus a third big issue - AVIAN FLU
 
Fred gathered folks together for conversations and explained how the noise 
and smell were being dealt with - folks seemed to understand at this point. The 
avian flu was a tough one- but it was decided that if avian flu showed up in 
the USA, we would get rid of the chickens. Finally we had consensus given the 
explanations of how the project would be handled AND a hearty YES from the 11 
children in the community.

The saga continues - we all love the chickens, the eggs AND the one rooster 
who came with the lot of chicks (sometimes telling their sex at birth is 
difficult) in the beginning. He crows at any time of day or night but he helps 
structure the lives of the hens in a rather creative way! 

*Our chicken tractor is quite a sight. The house (8 ft X 3 ft) is made of 
green plastic siding with a roost and 3 nests inside. It can be moved each week 
since it is built on 2 riding mower wheels and has a handle on the back side. 
There are two portable chicken runs, one on each end of the coop which detach 
for moving purposes. Food and water are piped into the coop. The coop/runs are 
designed to fit into our garden beds. These birds have become part of our 
recycling program here at Songaia, they eat nearly all of our scraps from the 
kitchen.
Yours in community and in fun,


Jim   Baumbach

Due to a different brain wiring than the more outspoken, extroverted types in 
the Order, I often found myself left completely out of the process.   When I 
was serious about participating in any discussions that involved decisions, it 
always took much effort to listen to what was being said and an even longer 
time to formulate my own thoughts about it.   When my thoughts started to 
clarify to a point that I felt I could intelligently express them, the group had 
moved well beyond them.  Expressing these thoughts when others had gone onto 
other issues was commonly rejected by hearing "we've already discussed that, 
where have you been?"   After several years of frustration I reached a point where 
I decided if the decision was something I agreed with, I'd support it.   If 
not, I chucked it out of my way and moved on.

Consensus decision making takes time not only because of the diverse opinions 
around the table but also because there are those of us who need time to 
think over the model, etc. in order to formulate our responses.   In the fast 
paced life of the Order, time always seemed to too little, too late.   It felt as 
if so many consensed decisions were plopped on us with a take it or leave it 
attitude.

In addition to diversity of opinions, consensus building takes time for those 
who think fast and talk fast to wait for people who think slower and talk 
less.


Jim Wiegel

I looked up the word "decision" in the dictionary this morning.   It comes 
from the same root as Incision, and scissors -- means to cut.   I was reminded 
that decisions and decision making is, in a sense, a savage business -- kind of 
like the arrows from Bultman or Kazantzakis imagery.   Insights and 
reflections like Frank's, approaches like Nancy's. consensus, voting are all trying to g
ive form to a very serious process -- in a way that gets, hopefully, a better 
decision, and does less injury along the way than whatever it replaces . . .





**************************************
 See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20071018/6c3d248f/attachment-0001.html