Re: Consensus requirements & Dealing with Difficult Peraonalities
From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:42:01 -0600 (MDT)
These two threads on Consensus requirements are interesting when you view
them together.

On 4/21/2003 12:41 PM, "Juva DuBoise" <juva [at] comcast.net> wrote:

> Before
> leaving consensus, I would suggest that the group attempt to discuss
> directly with this member the identified issue, (using Non-violent
> communication steps) giving her concrete examples  of behaviors that are
> difficult for the community, what individuals (speaking for themselves) are
> feeling (emotions not thoughts), what they are hoping for - needing- and ask
> all along the way what she is hearing (supporting her by letting her know
> that this is hard and that the goal is to get her needs met).....If she is
> not at a point of being able to hear this...then reverse the process and see
> if someone can guess (this is a group process!) what she if feeling and
> needing.  I understand how hard and risky this is.....but just imagine what
> group strength will come out of this!  If you all are able to help her
> clarify what she is needing everyone wins.

I would opt for this first. This will also lead to clarification of goals.
You can see where you agree and disagree. The group may need to split, and
offer each other support in building two different communities.

If you can confront the feelings around this, you will be so far ahead of
where you are now. You will be amazed at the results for _everyone_. If you
just exclude this person, there will be another to take her place. Everyone,
including her, has to learn how to work with this situation. She is not the
problem -- the problem is working with diverse groups of individuals. You
have to work it out now or later, and as Laird Schaub says, "If you do it
later, the interest rates are very high." More comments below.


On 4/22/2003 12:31 PM, "Rob Sandelin" <floriferous [at] msn.com> wrote:

> 1. People are willing to express what they think and feel without fear of
> reprisal.
> 2. Participants agree that the good of the group is the most important
> factor.
> 3. There at least one well trained facilitator to guide the group, or the
> entire group is well
> trained enough to guide itself.
> 4. The participants trust, or are willing to trust in the future, the group.
> 5. The participants can rely on the group to hold their personal interests
> fairly.
> 6. The process is evaluated regularly so participants learn and improve
> their skills
> 7. The participants are willing to invest the time it takes.

Except for 7 and the need for common objectives, what Rob is giving as the
requirements for consensus I would call the _product_ of consensus. People
have to be willing to put in the time to consider everyone's feelings and
work them through to design a workable solution. The requirement of
consensus is the only thing I've seen that makes a group of people do the
hard work of reaching it.

"The good of the group is the most important factor" I still disagree with
as we have discussed before. A strong group is composed of strong
individuals, otherwise you get group-think which is not in the best
interests of anyone. (A group of Anyones is not very interesting either.)

Consensus requires that a solution be found that reasonably satisfies the
needs of all members of the group, not that all members of the group
"conform" or pretend to conform. This is why consensus well-done can produce
better and more long lasting decisions.

Sharon
-- 
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org


_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.