Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Consensus vs Majority Voting

[Rob Sandelin (floriferous]

I have had the privilege of watching over 400 consensus groups work their
process. And I have visited and watched well over 100 intentional
communities work their process. I spent five years as a group process
consultant, teaching among other things, how to use consensus. I have worked
with several dozen cohousing groups, helping them troubleshoot their process
problems. Here  is what I have learned from the accumulation of my
experiences.

I have found that using a majority vote as a backup to a consensus process
prevents controllers from hijacking the process to get their demands met.
Consensus has nothing to do with getting your way, in my experience
consensus requires enormous humility to succeed. You have to be able to see
the limits to your own experiences and viewpoints, and understand that to
consent does not mean you agree, it means you give permission. It is common
to give permission to something you disagree with because you understand
your own fears and limits to your experiences, and because you want to learn
and have the group learn.

So blocking is only to avoid FATAL mistakes that will do serious damage to
the group, or undermine the groups charter or mission in a huge way.

This humility is why Quakers can use consensus so well, and often why it
fails in cohousing. People are so sure that THEIR idea or position is the
RIGHT one, that they block the whole group. And thus you are not using
consensus, you are using a minority vote control.

It is NOT a bad thing, to reign in the controllers in your group when they
act dysfunctional. It is a very good thing for your group. I have found that
they do not necessarily leave, they move into collaboration, knowing that
they can't use BLOCKING to get their way, so they have to honestly
collaborate rather than bully the process.

You can still listen to all viewpoints, still encourage people to speak
their truth, but then you can vote on an outcome, and then move on. It is
hugely damaging to the groups trust to have the cooperative process hijacked
by people with their own agendas. Good People, who really want to
collaborate, give up, stop  coming  to meetings, stop being involved,
because the process becomes a sham. People make disparaging comments about
consensus and the group process becomes the butt for painful jokes.

Most cohousing groups don't have a process for dealing with process
problems, few ever intervene with inapproiate or damaging behaviors of
individuals, and seldom do groups formally train themselves in  good process
and expect all new members to take the same training. So in most cohousing
groups, consensus really means cave into the dominant personalities demands
or spend weeks going around and around.

I have been to lots of communities to help them with their process and the
first step is to identify the behaviors that cause problems. The community
members clearly see the individual or individuals that are causing the
problems, and almost always these individuals have a pattern of behavior
which is easily identifiable. For simplicity I call these dominant people
controllers. Its just a handy label to describe a set of behaviors which are
common and repeated. I have yet to visit a cohousing group anywhere that did
not have at least one controller. Controllers often take leadership roles
and are important to nurture and help succeed. Good behavior feedback
communication can  help a controller not dominant the group and cause
problems.

There are those who think consensus over simple things normally takes
several hours, that's just how it goes with consensus. This is not the case.
In a healthy consensus process, I have watched functional groups (for
example Greenpeace International) make 5-6 consensus decisions in one 3 hour
meeting of 50 people, from 22 countries, a couple of them taking a hour each
because of their difficulties. They understand consensus, all the members
are trained in it as a requirement to participate, they have outstanding
facilitation, and communication is a priority. Consensus, with a well
trained and functional group works well and reasonably fast, certainly as
fast as Roberts Rules of Order.

Consensus is a noble pursuit, and it can make it feel like equalitarianism
is happening. And as a community, it is normal people want to use consensus
process. But when a small number of people, or an individual use blocking to
get their way, then you no longer are using a consensus process and voting
is a very appropriate way to move on. Especially if you are not going to
intervene with inappropriate behaviors.

Rob Sandelin



-----Original Message-----
From: cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org
[mailto:cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org]On Behalf Of Sharon Villines
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 6:33 AM
To: Cohousing-L
Subject: [C-L]_Consensus vs Majority Voting


Certainly it is better for a group to function without fear of anything,
particularly decision processes. But going to a majority vote creates a
dissatisfied minority. Once that is done, the group will not only have a
much more difficult time coming to any decision, but will have made group
decision making itself pointless. There will be no group -- certainly not a
community of people who feel they are equal members.

A majority vote says I don't care what "you" think, "we" don't have to pay
attention to you. When a group reaches this point the disagreeing membersare
disenfranchised and will live on the margins of the group with their
discontent or leave. There may be times when this has to happen and some
need to leave the group, but not over a fence decision (one hopes).

"Forced cooperation" is an oxymoron, however hot the desire burns in the
hearts of frustrated cohousers everywhere. If a person is perceived by the
group as being "controlling" rather than functioning in the best interests
of the group, then that is the subject -- not the subject of the decision.

To continue to discuss the best type of fence when the real issue is that
some members of the group feel that X "lost" the last two votes and now
wants to "win" one, is counter productive. The sub-issues will have to be
discussed first.

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.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02

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