|RE: Reviewing our consensus process and voting||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Rob Sandelin (Floriferousclassic.msn.com)|
|Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:29:22 -0500|
Four to six times each year I get called from a local community to help them mediate a consensus block or other dispute. Trying from a far to sort out a multi-step problem with group process is fraught with peril. However, one thing in your post stands out clearly to me: "so, for one issue, one member blocked consensus at least partly because she didn't feel safe with the proposed policy and others were extremely angry because of their perception that someone could impose a rule on them based more on personal feelings than what was right for the group as a whole." In my learning and teaching about consensus, I have come to the conclusion, that almost always, blocking is done inappropriately. In my experience, in a group where an individual blocks to "get their way" rather than what is best for the whole group, that group should probably not be using consensus as their decision making system and should use a meta majority vote instead. Consensus is like a chain saw, and when used incorrectly can seriously damage your group. You need to have every member be well trained in its use, and have a common set of agreements about using it before you start. I am continually astonished at how many naive groups of people use consensus incorrectly, with no understanding of how to use consensus, get into all kinds of group troubles (even disbanding) and then blame consensus for their problems. Short of like swinging a chainsaw with one hand like an axe against a tree, getting your arm cut off, and calling the chainsaw faulty. In my experience and learning, blocking is ONLY valid, if the individual is committed that the solution will seriously damage the group, or violate its mission. It is never OK to block for personal dislike, or personal values that are not group values. The latter case is one of the most common situations I get into when I mediate intentional community disputes. To hold an entire group to your personal value system against their will, is a dysfunctional behavior. I am a large advocate of having well trained group members, and excellent, well trained facilitators. Most groups have totally naive facilitators, and stumble along with long, painful meetings that people do not want to go to. Meetings should be exciting, fun (Oh my god, did he say fun?), and people should look forward to them, not dread them. A well trained facilitator plans every meeting and uses special techniques and skills to make meetings effective. A poorly trained, or untrained facilitator does not have a clue, doesn't prepare, reacts rather than guides, and the meetings end up lasting five painful hours. This killed dozens of social activist groups that tried using consensus. Don't let it kill your group. Use voting instead, and don't use consensus until every member is trained. Rob Sandelin Running Effective Consensus Meetings Workshop Openings for October and Nov. The book is in first draft and will be out next Spring. Probably.
Reviewing our consensus process and voting Dahako, April 28 1998
- RE: Reviewing our consensus process and voting Rob Sandelin, April 28 1998
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.