[Oe List ...] Consensus pull-together

[Len Hockley]

HI,
This is a little late in coming but I just ran into a concept that might be 
helpful for the future.  It's called Sociocracy and has been around for 
over a hundred years.  It seems from a cursory view to be a viable 
alternative to consensus as we know it.  See http://www.sociocracy.info/.

Len

At 04:08 PM 10/18/2007 -0400, Lifeline248 at aol.com wrote:
>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
>_______________________________________________
>OE mailing list
>OE at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20071025/47682d8d/attachment-0001.html