Cohousing-L Mailing List: Individual vs. the group in consensus process

[Rob Sandelin (floriferous]

Elizabeth argued (I think) that the good of the group is not a requirement
for consensus. 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.

Thirty people all negotiating their own self interest will most likely not
achieve consensus unless their is some higher value that they all hold where
they are willing to remove their own self interest. For example, in a
discussion about construction details, members are willing to let their own
self interests be superceded by the groups need to get the project built at
all. So the underlying greater good is to get the project built. Once this
goes away, assuming the project is built, often groups flounder with
consensus because there is no commitment to a greater good or mission that
you can use as a base to measure against. Then it's just self interest
opinion vs. self interest opinion. May the most clever argument win.

However, typically in this situation you get a negotiated least unacceptable
solution as a decision, which is not consensus. If you spend time at all
with Quakers and their process you find it is based in service, humility and
personal sacrifice for the larger good. These are core values of Quaker
consensus, (and many communities) and why I think consensus rarely works in
self interest driven situations. The primary question to determine consensus
is not, is this acceptable to me, it is, Is this decision in the best
interest of our community?

Caretaking individual interests is a core part of consensus process, and it
is the only way a person will trust the group and hold the groups interests
over their own, but it also has to work the other way as well. I see this as
being a core requirement for consensus, because without consideration of the
greater good, people use their own self interest as the guide to what they
do. This lack of confidence that the group will hold your self interest
fairly is often a key element to why a group really struggles to make
decisions. People who do not trust the group to caretake for them will raise
objections on their own behalf, and often these roadblock the ability of the
group to move forward.


One of the things which I would wish on everyone is to be able to watch and
participate in a really good, functional consensus group process. Then you
would know the difference between what is called consensus, and what really
IS consensus. The sad thing for me is how many people  use a process they
call consensus, which is really not, and it frustrates them and makes them
unhappy and does not work very well.

A final ending quote: A functional consensus process means you never leave
with a stomach ache.

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: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:42 AM
To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
Subject: Re: [C-L]_Consensus requirements & Dealing with
DifficultPeraonalities



These two threads on Consensus requirements are interesting when you view
them together.

On 4/21/2003 12:41 PM, "Juva DuBoise" <juva [at] comcast.net> wrote:

> Before
> leaving consensus, I would suggest that the group attempt to discuss
> directly with this member the identified issue, (using Non-violent
> communication steps) giving her concrete examples  of behaviors that are
> difficult for the community, what individuals (speaking for themselves)
are
> feeling (emotions not thoughts), what they are hoping for - needing- and
ask
> all along the way what she is hearing (supporting her by letting her know
> that this is hard and that the goal is to get her needs met).....If she is
> not at a point of being able to hear this...then reverse the process and
see
> if someone can guess (this is a group process!) what she if feeling and
> needing.  I understand how hard and risky this is.....but just imagine
what
> group strength will come out of this!  If you all are able to help her
> clarify what she is needing everyone wins.

I would opt for this first. This will also lead to clarification of goals.
You can see where you agree and disagree. The group may need to split, and
offer each other support in building two different communities.

If you can confront the feelings around this, you will be so far ahead of
where you are now. You will be amazed at the results for _everyone_. If you
just exclude this person, there will be another to take her place. Everyone,
including her, has to learn how to work with this situation. She is not the
problem -- the problem is working with diverse groups of individuals. You
have to work it out now or later, and as Laird Schaub says, "If you do it
later, the interest rates are very high." More comments below.


On 4/22/2003 12:31 PM, "Rob Sandelin" <floriferous [at] msn.com> wrote:

> 1. People are willing to express what they think and feel without fear of
> reprisal.
> 2. Participants agree that the good of the group is the most important
> factor.
> 3. There at least one well trained facilitator to guide the group, or the
> entire group is well
> trained enough to guide itself.
> 4. The participants trust, or are willing to trust in the future, the
group.
> 5. The participants can rely on the group to hold their personal interests
> fairly.
> 6. The process is evaluated regularly so participants learn and improve
> their skills
> 7. The participants are willing to invest the time it takes.

Except for 7 and the need for common objectives, what Rob is giving as the
requirements for consensus I would call the _product_ of consensus. People
have to be willing to put in the time to consider everyone's feelings and
work them through to design a workable solution. The requirement of
consensus is the only thing I've seen that makes a group of people do the
hard work of reaching it.

"The good of the group is the most important factor" I still disagree with
as we have discussed before. A strong group is composed of strong
individuals, otherwise you get group-think which is not in the best
interests of anyone. (A group of Anyones is not very interesting either.)

Consensus requires that a solution be found that reasonably satisfies the
needs of all members of the group, not that all members of the group
"conform" or pretend to conform. This is why consensus well-done can produce
better and more long lasting decisions.

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