RE: Consensus-A Time to Rethink? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (robsanmicrosoft.com) | |
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 17:59 CST |
Tom Moench asks: >Why do we build into our consensus building processes the right to block >(e.g., red cards) the will of the group in arriving at a decision? Doesn't >this promote individualism? I believe there are at least two prerequisites for a group to use consensus. It is my belief that groups which do not have these two prerequisites are making a mistake by using consensus to make decisions and would be better off voting. In order for consensus to function everyone in the group has to agree that the good or the mission of the group is more important than their own personal agenda. There has to be a commitment to the group. Consensus blocking is only reasonable , in my opinion, if the blocker fully believes that the proposed course of action is not in the best interests of the group. When someone blocks because it is not in the best interests of the group, it is usually pretty easy to figure out a solution by just asking, why does this course not serve the best interests of the group? One of the reasons consensus may fail cohousing groups is that they often lack any real sense of commitment to a mission or purpose. Groups which I have been in which use consensus very well, such as greenpeace, have a very strong mission and thus consensus works very well because everyone has that mission commitment in mind when they block consensus. It is common for people to block because a decision is not in their own best interests and this scenario really is ripe for majority voting, not consensus. The process of "standing aside" can be used for individual concerns. Another prerequisite for consensus is open and honest communication among the group. If people will not state the truth, or are afraid to say their honest feelings, then again consensus does not work as a decision making process. It is not uncommon for individuals who block, or even holding alternative opinions, to be vilified, targets of angry outbursts, called names, and generally given negative feedback. When this occurs you have an environment where consensus is not possible because only the very strongest person, who can take that kind of abuse, will ever speak up. Consensus values and honors the individual and their commitment to the group. If someone blocks they should not have to defend themselves at all, rather be given a chance to speak, if they wish to at that time, or encouraged to at a later time. They should not have to answer to an angry mob as if they were in a firing squad. Consensus assumes there is a best answer for the group. Sometimes there is not. Some decisions come down to personal preference and should just be voted on, for example the color of the tile in the commonhouse bathroom. I like green, you like brown. Brownish-green is ugly. Greenish-brown is ugly. There is no right answer, only my and your preferences and if we are both equally adamant about our preferences then consensus is a useless waste of time. Assuming either color is equally valid as a choice then there is no best answer. Granted we could spend hours and hours and hours until someone gave in on the decision, but that isn't consensus, its just wearing down opposition to your point of view. In my opinion, it is in the best interests of any group to clearly define what consensus means, how you will know you have it, and what types of decisions it should be applied to and not applied to. It is better to be flexible about decision making to fit the right kind of decision making to the right sort of decision than trying to make all sizes of decisions fit a single model. In the forming stages of values statements and such consensus may work well. As development happens you will have to make fast decisions and consensus may not serve your purposes. During building it may be better to have an individual or small group making decisions as they come up, rather than bringing every detail to a large group consensus meeting. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood
-
RE: Consensus-A Time to Rethink? TomMOENCH, January 20 1995
- RE: Consensus-A Time to Rethink? Stuart Staniford-Chen, January 20 1995
- RE: Consensus-A Time to Rethink? Rob Sandelin, January 20 1995
- Re: Consensus-A Time to Rethink? FIFTHRING, January 22 1995
- Re: Consensus-A Time to Rethink? Stephen Hawthorne, January 24 1995
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.