Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Decision making

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> On Mar 3, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Sandy Thomson <sandykthomson [at] gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> I am wondering how many communities out there have switched from an unanimous 
> decision making process to one that still embodies the consensus decision 
> making process where there is a real desire for every voice to be heard but 
> if a community becomes stuck and a unanimous decision can not be reached 
> another method is employed. 

First, consensus is not about unanimous decisions. It helps to view it as 2 
decisions.

1. Given my own needs/purposes/resources, is this the solution that meets my 
needs/requirements for moving forward?
2. Given the needs/purposes/resources of other members of the group, can I work 
with this decision? Can I live with it? Can I respect and abide by the decision?

"Unanimous" often is interpreted as "this is the best decision for me and 
everyone else." This is not consensus, it is solidarity. Solidarity is 
necessary in some situations — when people are making full commitment to a 
dangerous action as in resistance movements, for example; when a weak link or 
hesitation endangers everyone else. This not what consensus means.

As the only governance method designed for consent/consensus decision-making, 
the sociocratic method specifies that consent/consensus only works when all the 
decision-makers 

1. have the same aim/goal/purpose in respect to the decision,
2. have chosen to make decisions together,
3. are able and willing to work through the process for the amount of time it 
takes.

If not, another method will be required in order to move forward productively. 
The most desirable action is  usually moving forward, not whether you agree 
with a decision to the depths of your soul or are willing to make sacrifices 
for it.  Those who consent may even have different reasons for consenting, for 
example, one person consents because they believe this is the best solution and 
another may consent because they see no better solution at this time. 

If one person’s purpose is to convert empty land to a swimming pool, and 
another person’s purpose is to plant a vegetable garden or a forest of trees as 
a sustainable action to support the environment, consensus may take more time 
than anyone is willing or able to spend on the decision. As discussing the two 
options creates deeper divisions, the spirit of the group is likely to 
degenerate rather than become stronger. 

More positive long-term solutions might be to vote or accept the decision of an 
expert from a broader perspective — expense, sustainability, city or state 
regulations, expected future developments in the larger community, etc.  For 
example, the local code and liability insurance may require solutions that the 
group is unable to sustain. 

Sometimes you can break the decision up into several parts and achieve 
consensus on each part individually — then continue to work on one part that is 
stuck.

See the options for resolving objections for using consent/consensus 
decision-making in "We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy”.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Sociocracy: A Deeper Democracy
http://www.sociocracy.info