Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus Decision Making

[Berrins (Berrins]

In a message dated 12/21/99 6:51:27 PM, gren [at] agora.rdrop.com writes:

<< Greetings -

One of the things I've been increasingly sensitive to in our meetings is
what it feels like to be "the cheese" -- as in "the cheese stands alone" 
-- during a meeting.  This can happen when an individual blocks consensus
on a "popular" or important decision, and also when someone comes forward
with a request of the group to meet their "special" needs (e.g.,
disabilities, chemical sensitivities, childcare during meetings, different
spiritual/non beliefs, etc.). >>

I know how you feel, Gretchen, I had to be "the cheese" at our last meeting.  
The people making the proposal were unwilling to bend, and stated they needed 
a consensus decision before moving onto the next step of their work.  I 
disagreed, saying we could accept their proposal as a "working" document, but 
allow ourselves the ability to somehow change or alter it without going 
through the whole process of reopening a consensus decision.

What's ironic is that the proposal I blocked was a set of definitions and 
processes regarding consensus!  Specifically, agreement, standing aside and 
blocking.  As a group we decided to drop the section regarding revisiting 
consensus decisions, and the proposal did not include anything about how to 
conduct discussions or facilitation or anything else; those are the next 
steps that committe will be working on.

I blocked because I felt consensus wasn't only necessary, but could 
conceivalbly "paint us into a corner" regarding any problems we had with this 
document in the future.  In other words, I didn't feel it was in the best 
interest of the community to consense on this document without any way to 
nudge or adapt or amend, aside from going through a "revisiting a consensus 
decision" process (a formal process, you may recall, that doesn't exist yet). 
 Someone eventually came up with a compromise, but not without a lot of hard 
feelings towards me during the discussions.

Which brings us back to Gretchen's point.  After a lot of committee work and 
general meeting discussions, we usually feel the need to "get on with it" and 
come to a decision.  In many circumstances (especially during design and 
development, which is what we are still doing a lot of) this is necessary.  
This urge to make a decision results in frustration when a block occurs, 
especially if discussion after the block doesn't resolve the issue and more 
so if only one person is doing the blocking.

At this point is takes a real committment to listen to the blocker.  Few 
people who block are so strong willed and articulate that they can withstand 
the antipathy while they consider all the points discussed, organize their 
thoughts, decide they still disagree and why and then state all that in a way 
reaches the frustrated.  Blocking shouldn't be easy, but it shouldn't be an 
emotional wringer either or the reason for the block may never get understood 
by the rest of the group because the blocker is too flustered to think 
clearly.  And that would ruin the chance to hear a unique perspective that 
could change the proposal.

This discussion, however, is incomplete without discussing how to revisit a 
consensus decision.  By the time an actual decision is made, many folks have 
a lot invested, both in time and emotion, in that decision.  The last thing 
they want to do is to open up the discussion again.  But what if that 
decision turns out to be wrong, or needs tweeking, or affects the community, 
or even an individual, in some unforeseen way?  How can we get folks to let 
go of their stubbornness long enough to consider changing a difficult 
decision?  A process for revisiting a consensus decision is useless without a 
comittment from everyone to keep an open mind.  I'd love to hear how other 
communities handle this issue.  Thanks.....

    -Roger