Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: qualifying a block as legitimate

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Apr 7, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Rod Lambert wrote:

> What John Cleese called the
> "articulate incompetent" sometimes sway the decision while those with
> unarticulated gut feelings are left out of the process.

And the unarticulated gut feelings are viewed by some as a veto or a  
block when they are actually just unprocessed concerns. They may not  
even be objections but the person having them needs time to work them  
through. Introverts need time alone to process.

In one group, we made a distinction between private and secret. Some  
people wanted to make their decisions in their own space. They weren't  
meaning them to be secret; they just needed private time before making  
a decision they could feel comfortable with.

> I wondered if adding in something someone else said on this theme a  
> few
> months ago would further improve the way decisions get made. I believe
> someone had said that if someone blocked (or objected?) to a decision
> they took on the responsibility, with the help of 2 or 3 willing
> members, to generate an "improved" proposal for later decision.

I think this is similar. One premise of systems thinking is that an  
organization is a system. One person is not the "problem." The whole  
affects and is affected by each part, so to view the parts outside the  
context of the whole is counterproductive.

From this point of view an individual can't work out a solution alone  
very well. It's a circular process that has to move from one person to  
another, from one idea to another, from one person back to the group.

We have a conflict in our community between those who believe that the  
way to resolve objections is to meet with people individually outside  
of the group and then you assemble to "rubber stamp" the decision.  
Sometimes the objections are solicited by email before any discussion  
has taken place, but more often after a preliminary discussion.

I object to this because:

(1) I want to hear the objections of others because they include  
information I want to have in order to make a decision, and

(2) I want to hear the reasons why people have removed their  
objections -- are they really resolved and how were they resolved. If  
nothing else they may have been resolved in a way that brings up other  
objections.

My consent is based in part on the consent of others and I need to  
know that their objections have really been resolved before I'm  
comfortable declaring consensus.

Consensus is a group process, not a unanimous vote. It only has  
meaning if everyone understands how and why everyone else supports the  
decision. No one will support it in the same way for the same reasons.  
It's more nuanced that a vote.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing,Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org