Cohousing-L Mailing List: Sociocracy (response to "blocking consensus" and long)

[Sheila Braun (sheila.braun]

This may not be much help to consensus-users, but our community uses
sociocracy, which we find pretty smooth now that we've gotten good at
it--and let me say in the same
breath that when we weren't good at it, it was a nightmare, as perhaps any
vague
decision-making process would be. I'll post about sociocracy here in detail
because I know some other groups find it interesting. If you're not in that
category,
then you might as well skip the rest of this post & no hard feelings ;-).

By the way, I'm not all that familiar with consensus, so I'll try not to
draw too many comparisons from hearsay. And please, those of you out there
who are more familiar with sociocracy
than I am, do post corrections to what I'm saying, which is only my own
understanding & not the word of an expert.

"Blocking" vs. Raising an Objection

Our sociocracy expert, John Buck, has said, "There is no blocking in
sociocracy." What follows in an explanation of that statement.

Generally, we don't seek agreement: we seek "the absence of any reasoned &
paramount objection."

It works like this: Somebody brings a proposal, and
then we have some discussion, and then we "do a round" on it, to see if
anyone has a "reasoned and paramount objection." I've seen this part abused;
people have said things like, "Because I like him," or "It just doesn't work
for me," but our trained facilitators no longer let people get away with
that kind of vagueness. If you don't like a proposal, you must give a
"reason," something that the proposal-bringer and the facilitator can work
with in order to
change the proposal. This doesn't mean that it must be logical, per se, but
it must be specific and clearly understood (not necessarily agreed with) by
all.

"Blocking" is almost a sacred cow among some cohousers, who hold to it as
their security that things they don't like won't happen, so many people have
asked if a facilitator can set aside an objection if it
isn't "reasoned & paramount." The answer is, sort of <gasp>. Suppose
somebody does
say on a round, "...because I just don't like it." The facilitator could
act simplistically and set that objection aside as not reasoned, but that
would be a mistake as we understand sociocracy. A good facilitator asks the
objector to say more, seeking something that the whole group can understand
(not necessarily agree with). If the objector says, "Well, the noise of
dishwashers irritates the living daylights out of me," then the group has
something to work with to modify the proposal. *Almost always* this
additional detail helps the whole group to improve the original proposal;
sometimes it reminds people of something they had totally forgotten.
Somebody else might comment, "Come to think of it, my favorite memories of
dishwashing were at the sink," or, "You know, I've heard about a new style
of dishwasher that makes *no noise,*" (ha) or whatever.

However, if instead of offering the kind of additional detail the group
needs to make progress, the objector says simply, "I just hate it, I won't
change my mind, and that's that," then the facilitator must set the
objection aside or at least take a break and try coming at it from a
different angle. We make an assumption that a person's feelings are
important, but we require that people explain them to us so we can
understand them (not necessarily agree with them) and take them into
consideration.

What if the facilitator screws up, and sets something aside as not reasoned
& paramount that you feel needs to be heard? There's a relatively easy way
to get round a facilitator, and that is to bring another proposal
("counter," perhaps) for consideration by the whole group. Suppose the group
passes a salting-sidewalks policy, and you feel that your reasoned &
paramount objection ("Salt harms vegetation,") was set aside in error
("...as you've brought no evidence, we will set aside your objection"--which
would be the facilitator missing an opportunity to make the proposal wait
while you muster your evidence). The next meeting, you bring a proposal to
use sand instead of salt, which would overturn the previous decision, and
might very well get passed.

Harm to the Community

In all of this, there is no requirement that harm to the whole community
must be at stake for an objection to be considered. Your objection is
"reasoned and
paramount" if it is important to you and if you can explain it to us so we
can understand it.

Here's a simple example: someone recently brought to the group a budget
proposal for
furnishing the common house. One member didn't like it because it wasn't
generous enough, so we altered it to add padding and it passed.

A more complicated example was a proposal to build half our units and to
sell the rest as lots for other people to build their own style of housing
on. We unearthed several objections on the round. One was that people might
build McMansions on the lots; the proposal was changed to include a design
review process. Another was that we might price ourselves out of the
community; the proposal was altered to specify some lower & some
higher-priced lots, as long as we are still within the range of the
market.... and so on. The idea is that, in sociocracy, there is no such
*thing* as "blocking": there is only a process of raising *objections* and
having the proposal-writer modify the proposal to meet concerns.

An objection, then, isn't a block to progress. It is a call to intelligent
people to think carefully and creatively. I'm sure there is a proposal out
there that simply wouldn't bear enough editing to survive our objections,
but we haven't met it *since* we have begun clearly to understand this
process. It took some work to get to this point, because the use of
sociocracy isn't well documented. The *theory* is, but just try facilitating
group decisions on a theory. Sheesh.

Revisiting Decisions

We don't have a rule preventing decisions from being revisited. We almost
made one, on the advice of several seasoned cohousing professionals, but
ultimately we felt more comfortable allowing anyone to revisit old decisions
by bringing new proposals (*not* re-opening the old proposal, though),
because then people feel more comfortable *making* the decision to begin
with. They know that if it doesn't work out, they can take another look at
it.

Perhaps this policy is open to abuse. We've been told it is, but what we
have found is that it allows our ever-growing group to absorb new people
with their new ideas, evolving always into the community that will end up
living there. It also lowers the stakes around a decision. Okay, I agreed to
400 linear feet of porches and a gazebo, but I knew at the time that if our
budget couldn't handle it then I could propose 200 linear feet with a
rationale based on real numbers; so I didn't have to argue against 400 feet
vaguely warning people that "we can't afford it." And when the numbers did
come in, it was a simple matter to bring a new proposal for half the
porches. I didn't have to go around drumming up support for opening the
decision again. Nor could I idly say, "Let's look at the porches decision
again," because I had to go to the trouble of writing a decent proposal.

Writing Proposals

The need for a clear proposal with a well-thought out rationale rules
sociocracy's functioning. For example, I can't propose that we have a
swimming pool. A proposal like that would be dismissed almost immediately
for more work. I have to say where, when, how much it costs, what kind of
water, etc. While I'm writing that proposal I am visiting with other
community members garnering ideas & thoughts because I want my proposal to
pass. If I tell Sue over dishes in the common house that I plan to propose a
swimming pool, and she tells me that she not only doesn't swim in
chlorinated water, but feels it is harmful to wildlife, then I know I'd
better do some work on those issues (fresh water?). If I've done the
front-end work properly, then by the time the proposal gets to the GC I know
what's going to happen, and all I have to do is tweak it a little ("if it's
not built by 2004 then then allocated funds revert to the common house
basement fund...." or whatever).

Drawbacks of Sociocracy

I think that for somebody coming from the consensus model sociocracy has a
few drawbacks (speaking from hearsay):

o) If you are used to having a group seek your agreement (rather than the
absence of your disagreement), then you might feel that your own "better
idea" has been ignored.

o) If you want something in the group's life to be different, it might not
happen
unless *you* make a proposal.

o) General meetings of the group are for making decisions. "Work," as in
brainstorming and researching in order to craft a proposal, happens in
committees or in ad hoc groups that band together around a specific idea
(like reconstructed wetlands, for example). If you
do not actively work on or bring proposals, and participate only through the
general circle meetings, then you might feel like you haven't had enough
time to kick a given idea around.

o) If the facilitator doesn't handle "objections" as calls to creative
thought, but rather *as* blocks to progress, then we've found that the
"objector" can be the focus of a great deal of negative energy. It's a
subtle point, but a critical one.

o) This model does not assume that the heart of a community is meetings. It
assumes that the heart of the community lies primarily in what happens
*between* meetings. I guess this can be a good thing or a bad thing.

o) The structure of a sociocratically run organization has more than a whiff
of heirarchy about it (more on this below).

Our cohousing professionals who have been used to consensus have not
responded with whole-hearted enthusiasm to sociocracy. I like to believe
it's because they
have seen only bits and pieces of it, and have perhaps not been a part of a
really well-run meeting during which the group operates like a happy
machine: Opening rounds (intros), status reports, then proposal, rationale,
objections, edits, re-read proposal, decision. Next proposal, etc., closing
rounds.

Of course nobody (and especially not cohousers) wants to feel like a
machine, even a happy one. The whole thing rests on a foundation of work
done in between meetings in (usually) smaller groups. But the up side is
that our general circle meetings are not exhausting searches for agreement
on a few big topics. In fact, if the group ends up looking for agreement per
se, it probably means the
proposal hasn't been hashed out in committee or ad hoc group well enough
before being
presented to the general circle. We send it back for more work, and the
agreement-seekers can use brainstorming to make a better proposal for the
rest of us to look at.

Structure

At the bottom of the organization you have committees; next up the heirarchy
is the the "General Circle," which elects the committee chairs and ensures
that
committees are being run properly (committees can use any kind of
decision-making process as long as the decision to *use* the different kind
of process was made sociocratically, with no reasoned & paramount objection
from committee members. Some of our committees actually run by consensus,
and some by
what might be better termed anarchy, but as long as all the members agreed
to it and it works, what the heck); next you have the functional leader (in
our case, project coordinator), who guides & assists the General Circle to
make decisions about day-to-day operations. Above the project coordinator is
the Executive Committee, or "Top Circle" (I hate that term, but it is the
standard sociocracy term translated from the Dutch). The Top Circle is
elected by the General Circle; it makes decisions having to do with the
overall direction the organization takes in the wider world. In our case,
this means decisions having to do with permitting or choosing professionals
or whatever.

The trick is (and here's why this is only "sort of"
heirarchical), *any member* may ask to be a decision-round member for
decisions made on *any circle.* If you see on the TC agenda that a decision
vis a vis reconstructed wetlands is coming up, then you can go to the
meeting and participate in editing the proposal to meet your concerns.

So a summary of the structure, top down: Top Circle--> Project
Coordinator--> General Circle--> Committees. And you choose your level of
participation.

If you've read down to here, thanks. And please contact me with corrections
or questions.

Sheila Braun
Project Coordinator
Champlain Valley Cohousing
(802) 862-8657







----- Original Message -----
From: "Kay Argyle" <argyle [at] mines.utah.edu>
To: "cohousing-L" <cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:15 PM
Subject: [C-L]_blocking consensus


> I've got a question about formal consensus process.
>
> I've been told repeatedly that the only justification for blocking
consensus
> is that you think the proposal will harm the community, and not because
you
> dislike it personally.
>
> If a proposal makes requirements of you that you find objectionable, but
> seems unlikely to cause harm to the community, and the community doesn't
> want to be talked out of it -- what are your options?  Aside from selling
> your house, or saying "I won't! And you can't make me."
>
> How far can one stretch the definition of "harm"?  I don't think having
> unhappy or angry members, even only one or two, can be regarded as *good*
> for a community.
>
> Due to a proposal under consideration, this question has unfortunately
> acquired practical importance for me.
>
> Kay
> Wasatch Commons
> Salt Lake City, Utah
> argyle [at] mines.utah.edu
> *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list
> Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
> http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
>



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