[Oe List ...] Consensus pull-together

[John Cock]

Great, Lucille. Thanks. I put into word document, 3 pages worth @ 12font.
 
John
  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of Lifeline248 at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:09 PM
To: oe at wedgeblade.net; dialogue at wedgeblade.net
Subject: [Oe List ...] Consensus pull-together


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 give 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/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20071018/413906cb/attachment-0001.html