RE: Individual vs. the group in consensus process | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (floriferousmsn.com) | |
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:47:09 -0600 (MDT) |
I think Sharon you misunderstand me. I don't say individuals do not have self interests, or should give up their self interest, I say, if the group process I call consensus is to function well, the individual interests are given to the group, examined and fairly dealt with in relation to the whole groups needs. However, if as an individual I am not willing to accept anything but serving my own self interest, even at the detriment to others or the whole group, then consensus is not a process that will ever work well for that group. It is, in my opinion, a requirement for consensus to work, that an individual be willing to let the larger groups interests supercede their own, and once they understand the differences, they do so happily in service to the greater good of the mission and success of the group. Labeling this Groupthink, is a misnomer. It's group commitment. In an individualist focus, there is shallow group commitment, where the individual is only willing to give to the group in relation to what is comfortable or convenient for them. Consensus at its very base is a GROUP decision process, not an individual one. In its highest expression, It's NEVER based on what's best for me, its ALWAYS based on what's best for all of us together. Humility, Service and Selflessness are the value foundations, and so this process is best used by groups that have a strong mission and purpose to which the participants subscribe to. Organizations like Greenpeace, the River Council or the Interfaith quest can use this process well and it serves them well because the groups work is the most important thing. This is also one of the many reasons why so few cohousing groups can really ever make this process work very well. The group definition is not strong enough so that all the members commit fully to its success. Rob Sandelin South Snohomish County at the headwaters of Ricci Creek Sky Valley Environments <http://www.nonprofitpages.com/nica/SVE.htm> Field skills training for student naturalists Floriferous [at] msn.com -----Original Message----- From: cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org [mailto:cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org]On Behalf Of Sharon Villines Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 8:01 AM To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org Subject: Re: [C-L]_Individual vs. the group in consensus process On 4/23/2003 10:15 AM, "Rob Sandelin" <floriferous [at] msn.com> wrote: > Let me put this another way, a group of people that only > consider, and primarily negotiate from their own interests are unlikely to > be successful using consensus process. Their decision making process will be > a series of slow and painful negotiations with every persons self interest > issue, and this may often end in roadblock when two or more opposing self > interests collide. But this definition of self-interest is a straw man. A person whose self-interests are considered in opposition to the group is not in a group. To require that people _not_ consider their own interests is to deny the needs of the individual, and to deny their own intelligence in the process. A group needs the intelligence of each member of the group in order to have a strong collective intelligence. Too many times I've heard too late, "Well I thought that wasn't a good idea but the group was all going in the other direction and it seemed like everyone knew what they were doing." A good decision comes from understanding the interests and needs and ideas and opinions of each person in the group and finding a workable solution. I see consensus is a process, not a thing. It's a process of understanding and working through each persons interests, in relationship to each other, in the context of what is possible. All these interests have to be addressed or they fester under the surface. In Sociocracy this is handled by keeping the focus on the "argument", meaning the decision to be made. What is the decision, what needs does it have to address, and what can be said for and against each possibility -- in the context of understanding that we need to move forward. What is the best we can do at the moment to address all this need? Objections are seen as good because they require the group to address all concerns and thus make a better, more long lasting decision that will have the full support of all members of the group. 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.cohousing.org/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.cohousing.org/cohousing-L
- Individual vs. the group in consensus process, (continued)
- Individual vs. the group in consensus process Rob Sandelin, April 23 2003
- Re: Individual vs. the group in consensus process Sharon Villines, April 23 2003
- Re: Individual vs. the group in consensus process Jeanne Goodman, April 23 2003
- Re: Individual vs. the group in consensus process Sharon Villines, April 23 2003
- RE: Individual vs. the group in consensus process Rob Sandelin, April 24 2003
- Re: Individual vs. the group in consensus process Sharon Villines, April 25 2003
- Re: overburdened "kool-aid" mom Shelly DeMeo, April 25 2003
- Re: overburdened "kool-aid" mom Elizabeth Stevenson, April 25 2003
- RE: overburdened "kool-aid" mom Rob Sandelin, April 26 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.