Re: Objections in Consensus [was: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus
From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 04:56:11 -0700 (PDT)

On Apr 5, 2007, at 10:51 PM, Tree Bressen wrote:

Sharon wrote:
In sociocracy there are no blocks or stand asides, only objections.

Personally i see the Stand Aside option as an extremely useful part of the
consensus process.  It allows someone to gracefully step aside for the
group to proceed, while having their concerns taken very seriously and
officially registered. It also recognizes that a person who really doesn't
support something should not be in a leading role of implementing it.

Consent in sociocracy does not mean agreement and a person can still have serious concerns registered -- no solution is prefect.

What consent means is that "I consent to moving forward because this is the best option available at this time." If a person knows a better option or they do not think moving forward is a good option at this time, they have an obligation to object. This is what keeps the group from making a mistake or moving forward without full commitment of all its members.

The objective in sociocracy is to build strong groups of individuals working toward a common aim. You can't do that with people opting out.

This reminds me of a question i've been harboring about sociocratic
consensus for some time now, so far i haven't come across an answer to this in articles i've read. What are the powers, and checks on the powers, of
the facilitator?

The rest of the group. If a facilitator makes a suggestion/judgment/decision, it is subject to the consent of the group. Anyone in the group can object and in most cases a round would be done to confirm the decision of the facilitator. The role of the facilitator as leader means that the facilitator can make proposals, unlike "neutral" facilitators who are discouraged from "leading" the group. But there is no element of autocratic power in the role of the facilitator -- only leadership.

The person whose objection is being considered to be not paramount would not participate in the consent round.

The same is true of a situation where a person is being removed from a circle (rare but an option, certainly in work situations). All members of the circle, except the person being removed, must consent before the action is taken.

Objections are valued and invited in sociocracy because they lead to
better proposals, ones that meet the needs of more members of the
group.

Valuing and inviting objections should be the case with non-sociocratic
consensus as well, but i recognize that too often in practice concerns are
not welcomed so enthusiastically.

That tense moment when everyone hopes no one says anything else!!!!

One difference is that in sociocratic groups the practice of defining aims more clearly and focusing rounds on specific issues, helps keep down the endless comments that are not relevant to the motion. If you are trying to make a decision on kitchen cabinets and someone starts commenting on the asphalt in the parking lot which begins a long thread about the children's room rug, the discussion is endless as everyone tries to figure out if this is relevant. I think sociocratic attitude is better at controlling that, as well as the use of rounds. A good facilitator can, as well, but the tone of sociocracy is to move clearly and directly toward objections or consent with directed rounds.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
http://www.sociocracy.info

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.