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

[Sheila Braun (sheila.braun]

continuing the sociocracy discussion:

>One thing i am
> a bit wary of is the emphasis here on "reasoned."  Yes, of course one
would
> hope and expect that in general, people's responses would be rational.
> However, when someone is not at peace with a proposal, the emotional
aspect
> of their reaction is often the strongest piece.  If a group *only* engages
> with the analytical reasons and doesn't deal with the underlying feelings,
> i think they lose out on valuable information. [snip]
>But i don't want members of a group to feel  like they only
> have permission to speak up if they can already articulate their concerns
> in well-formed analytical paragraphs, especially because then the less
> articulate members may feel too intimidated to speak at all.

I had the same concern, because I think that "reasoning" is only one part of
any decision, and especially as a feminist who wants to consider different
approaches to what perhaps is an emphasis on making decisions in ways
inherited from patriarchal assumptions, I wanted to make sure that emotional
or spiritual input had room. However, the term "reasoned" is broader within
sociocracy than it looks. It doesn't have to be logical or intellectual or
well analyzed, just something specific enough to be understood.

Here are some examples of reasons:

o) "I can picture myself walking around the community day after day and
wishing that we were farther away from the road. I'm afraid that being so
close to the road will poison my whole experience of cohousing." In this
case, the group would stop and consider ways to change the proposal to deal
with this concern. Add a berm? Plant a screen or build a fence? Move a
hundred feet to the south? Make sure some specific units and the central
common space are especially well protected from noise? We would do our best.
If the person with the concern won't accept anything *except* moving the
whole community to a place that the development team tells us will cause the
whole thing to fail in permitting, then the facilitator might have to set
the objection aside. But in that case, I'd argue that the person with the
concern *wasn't* being "reasonable."

Allowing a facilitator this kind of power may seem scary, but to me, the
idea of allowing any member of whatever understanding of development process
and whatever amount of money invested to stall everybody at what might be a
whim--well, that's my idea of a nightmare.

o) "I need a little more time to think this through."

This is important to consider if the proposal wasn't publicized in good
time. We try to get our proposals out a week to several days before the
meeting (two weeks would be better, but we're not that good yet), inviting
questions & responses. If the person raising this objection worked hard
before the meeting to get up to speed & couldn't because of the complexity
of the issue, then the facilitator must try to find a way to give the
decision more time. If, however, the objection raiser didn't do his/her
homework, but waited until the meeting to raise questions that could have
been explored ahead of time, the facilitator would be within her or his
rights to consider this not a reasonable response.

Yes, this degree of power to a facilitator is scary. But these facts balance
things out: 1) you can always bring a counter proposal; and 2) you consented
to the facilitator, which implies that you trusted him or her, and next
election (or before then, if you feel strongly) you can elect someone else.

>
> What if 10 people are sitting there in the room thinking the
> facilitator has messed up and the original objection was sufficiently
> reasoned and paramount as to require more work on the proposal?

If 10 people are sitting in the room thinking the facilitator messed up,
then the proposal simply won't pass. All it takes is one person besides the
one whose objection is being set aside to think it's an error and the whole
thing stops. Suddenly the facilitator is facing *two* or *ten* "reasoned &
paramount objections." Oops. Proposal goes back for more work. Sheesh.

>
> >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.
>
> I think that is a very interesting difference from consensus.

I think it's critical. In consensus, is there an agreed-upon definition of
"harm to the community"?
>
> The structure where members only list concerns about a proposal and not
why
> they support it sounds similar to CT Butler's Formal Consensus process.
As
> i mentioned recently in another post, that aspect of FC is sometimes
> criticized as focusing too much on the negative.

Fascinating observations & questions. FC's focus on concerns seems like a
great idea to me, although it does *seem* negative. But really, when you
focus on overcoming negatives you are setting the bar much lower than if you
are reaching for the best positive you can imagine. In a small group you
want to reach for the stars, and in a large one reaching for the stars is a
recipe for constant bickering.

>Also it could potentially
> allow a proposal to pass that no one had big objections to but that
> actually doesn't have enough group energy behind it to get carried out.
> Have you ever observed this problem in sociocratic groups?  If not, can
you
> say how you think it's avoided?

We have had proposals pass that no one had big objections to but that didn't
have enough energy to get carried out. This outcome to a proposal very
possibly reflects that the proposal was for somebody *else* to do some kind
of work--which in sociocracy, hardly ever gets you very far.

In one instance, some prospective members brought a proposal for a
membership process that was quite complicated, & in my opinion, intrusive
("the applicant must spend at least 2 months thinking about the meaning of
community" etc.). It needed a committee of people to execute it. The
proposal was brought by prospective members, so one of the equity members
suggested that the committee must have at least 3 equity members (sensible
enough). The predicable thing happened: the proposal passed but the policy
was never enacted.

Sociocracy as we practice it has many "aikido moves." You don't fight: you
yield, but in such a way that success depends on the person with the request
following through in a very specific way. It is amazing to me how many times
this takes the teeth right out of a conflict with very little fuss--and even
more amazing how often the person with the request feels happy simply to
have been heard & has no need to follow through after that.

>
> For something like "Should we build the swimming pool?" i think the
process
> outlined above sounds great.  However, if the issue under consideration is
> one that's broader, deeper, more long-term, and so on, i usually recommend
> a group go back and forth between doing the work in committee and doing
the
> work in plenary (plenary = whole group there).  For example, if the
> community is trying to write a vision statement, i'd recommend
> brainstorming by small groups or the whole group at a meeting, then a
> committee takes what was generated and creates a draft, then brings it
back
> to the whole group, then maybe back to the committee for more tweaking.  I
> think it's a more inclusive process that way, and that for big things a
> more inclusive process is necessary and appropriate.  Of course that is
> just my opinion, and sociocratic practitioners may have experiences that
> lead them to think or feel otherwise.

I agree that broader, deeper decisions need plenary brainstorming. That's a
very good point. The way we do it is that the committee (in our case this is
usually the design committee) sets up a meeting and invites the whole
membership (this is how we do charettes, for example). It's not a business
meeting of the General Circle, but it is a meeting of the whole group
managed by the body that is crafting the proposal (which might be a proposal
for our common house program).
>
> Who is included in the General Circle, is that everyone with
> decision-making power?

Every Equity Member (member with 5% or more down on their house).
>
> How is it decided who serves on committees?

The committee chair rustles up membership after being elected, or inherits
membership from a previous chair. We've never had a problem not having
enough room on committees. Quite the opposite.
>
> It seems odd to me that committee chairs are chosen by the GC rather than
> by the people on the committee, is there a rationale for that?

I never thought about that before. It seems odd to *me* that committees
themselves should be formed from a disorganized body of people rather than
by somebody chosen by the entire membership (the chair). I think the general
circle membership trusts the committee more if they get to elect the chair,
and can let go of decisions better. If it's done the other way around, isn't
there usually somebody who says, "We need a Common House Committee"? Where
does that person go with his or her idea? In our case, they come to the
General Circle with the proposal & are likely to be elected chair on the
spot.
>
> >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.
>
> This position seems extremely important, and i don't think there is an
> analogous role in consensus-based structures.  I mean there might be
> someone in charge of a particular project, but there is no Leader at most
> cohousing communities.  Can you say more about this role?

I have read something to the effect that there are leadership roles in
cohousing but no leaders. I don't confess to understand that statement,
although I do understand that in inhabited cohousing a strong leader could
be a problem.

To answer your question about rationale. This role is inhabited by a single
person because it's just easier to run the organization that way. With a
project coordinator, the professionals we hire, the committee chairs (many
of whom are new to the organization), and the outside world in general know
who they can contact for guidance or for answers to their questions. It's
really just a point-person and organizing role. How can you develop
cohousing without having somebody in that position?

The more I get to know sociocracy, the less "powerful," however, this
functional leadership role seems to be. For one thing, the functional leader
takes marching orders from the Top Circle (which may be chaired by somebody
else) and can be removed by the Top Circle. For another, as I get more
practiced at it, it becomes more and more of a service-oriented role.

Not sure how this role works in a built community.
>
> Who facilitates the meetings of the General Circle?  How about at the Top
> Circle?

Facilitators are elected by the circles. In our organization, Nancy Gile
facilitates General Circle meetings, and I facilitate Top Circle meetings.
But the Top Circle could just as easily be facilitated by somebody who isn't
the project coordinator.

Cheers,
Sheila
Champlain Valley Cohousing
www.champlainvalleycohousing.org
Charlotte, Vermont

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