Re: Consensus-Cooperative vs. Competetive
From: Rob Sandelin (robsanmicrosoft.com)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 10:38 CST
Just want to touch on  the whole issue of competetive vs cooperative 
process in consensus.

In a cooperative process every idea and input from every individual is 
openly considered, fairly evaluated against other ideas in a 
non-threatening way.  The pros and cons of each idea are listed 
honestly, and all ideas are fairly treated.  Individuals bring ideas 
and give them away to the group with no attachment or ownership needed 
because every idea is treated with the same fairness and rigor.  A 
cooperative process builds trust and gives clear honest choices.  The 
decision is owned equally by everyone.

In a competetive process individuals come with agendas which they 
"lobby" for.  Ideas are owned, fiercely defended and protected.  The 
pros are magnified by the "owners" the cons are not discussed, or 
dismissed.  Other ideas which may "compete" are ignored, dismissed or 
outright attacked. The attack on "competing" ideas often eliminates 
further exploration of choices.   Because ideas are owned and defended, 
arguing replaces discussion, few real choices are offered.  The 
decision is owned by one or a small group of people.  A competitive 
process destroys trust, and results in decisions based on limited choices.

Is it possible to use a competitive process and still call the decision 
consensus?

Rob Sandelin
Sharingwood

  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.