|One objector stopping all progress||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Rob Sandelin (floriferousmsn.com)|
|Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:18:44 -0700 (PDT)|
When I used to do facilitation trainings in consensus groups a common problem was one person using their veto power over the group. When this happens, it often means you are not using consensus, you are using unanamious agreement, which is MUCH harder to do. I found it very common that people think that consensus means everyone agrees. This is not the case at all. In fact, it is very common in consensus process for members to give permission even when they don't entirely agree. I have seen it where because someone raised an objection, the group assumed that permission would be withheld (blocking). This again often not the case. Many times the objection is noted, but will not hold up the decision, and when permission is asked for, it is given, even though there are reservations and objections. This is actually pretty normal since often you can not know the impacts of certain outcomes without making a decision, evaluating the results over time then reflecting back on the objections or reservations to see if they are still valid. And of course, with experience, individuals and groups change their thinking. The root of consensus is consent, which means, give permission to. It does not mean agreement. It is in my experience, normal for consensus members to hold their humility when they give permission. By that I mean, they give permission for the group to move ahead even though they might have disagreements or reservations because they know that their own perspective is limited, the situation might be different than personal experience, or they might just very well be wrong about things. After airing their ideas and feelings, they allow the group to move ahead if doing so meets the needs of the group. For all these reasons, and others, the humble member gives permission to the group to move ahead at this time. Obviously if the group is not willing to trust the best interests are being upheld, or if there is personal pathology, then the group will rarely be able to move forward using consensus and it is probably not the right method of decision making for the group at that time. I am still astonished when I find groups who with considerable agony and after hours and hours of work continue to use a decision process that does not work for them. There is sometimes almost a cult-like attachment to consensus, an attachment which may not serve the group at all. Sometimes consensus process is NOT the right process for a group to use, but they insist on doing so anyway, until the group disbands because it is unable to function. Then these people blame consensus for their problems, problems which had nothing to do with consensus. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood Naturalist, Writer The Environmental Science School http://www.nonprofitpages.com/nica/SVE.htm ><((((º>`·..·`·..·`·...><((((º>...·`·..·`·...><((((º>.·`·..·`·...><((((º>.·` ·..·`·...><((((º>·.. ><((((º> ·`·..·`·...·..·`><((((º>.·`·..·`·...><((((º>.·`·..·`·...><((((º>..·`·..·`·.. .><((((º>·.. ·`·..·`·....·`·..·`·...><((((º> -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.7/379 - Release Date: 6/29/2006
- Policies, (continued)
- Re: Pet Policy Tilstra, June 30 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.