Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus & delegation

[areinert (areinert]

On Mon, 6 Feb 1995 Mmariner [at] aol.com wrote:

> Some wise folks I know who teach the consensus process and group
> facillitation say that groups should work to reach consensus on major issues
> and directions, then delegate subgroups or individuals to carry out the
> decision, without having to reach consensus on every detail of the
> implementation.
> 
> This approach, of course, entails trust in delegating and a willingness to
> let the end result vary (within the consensed boundaries) somewhat based on
> the  folks carrying out the decision.
> 
> 
> Mike M.
> 
That's dangerous, because it requires one party to presume what's 
important for others without consultation, and they might be very 
wrong.

Example today.  At the meeting it was consensed (I'm not an English
professor, but is that a proper verb?) to build a fence, where, and why. 
But it turned out that the height of the fence that the fence-task person
had thought had been consensed on had not.  A 2' foot difference in fence
height might be considered a minor detail to be delegated, but it turned
out not to be.  Feelings were a bit ruffled, as can happen when 
misunderstandings and presumptions are abruptly and publicy exposed.  But 
it would have been a lot worse if the misapprehension had not surfaced 
until after lots of expensive material had been purchased.  Someone 
commented that in the long run hesitations and blockage of consensus by 
what at the moment seem unreasonably obstreperous persons usually turned 
to be justified.

Arne