Cohousing-L Mailing List: Consensus Not Unanimity & Objections [ was Dynamic Governance-Sociocracy workshop June 15-16 in Boston MA

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On 5 May 2012, at 11:43 AM, Doug Chamberlin wrote:

> Perhaps it was not taught but almost all groups I have encountered that
> are using consensus strive for unanimous agreement. Maybe they have
> devolved to that point and lost sight of their original intent. I don't
> know for sure.

I think it is a common misconception. What is needed is unanimous consent to 
move forward, not unanimous agreement with the proposal.

I think of it as two decisions, 

1. My own judgement of whether I think it is a good proposal, my concerns and 
objections, and

2. Given the concerns and objections and desires of others, should we move 
forward.

Since the early 1970s when I was first exposed to consensus decision-making, 
this definition is the one groups I've been in have been using. Sociocracy adds 
another layer which is "does this proposal affect my ability to work 
enthusiastically toward the aim of the group." This criterion originated in the 
workplace where the criterion are based on the ability to do your job where 
decisions are less likely to be related to an expression of personal values or 
affect living conditions as they do in cohousing.

A final objection requires that given all the factors related to the decision, 
including the beliefs and desires of others, I still think this is an 
unworkable proposal.

Some of our members believe that consensus means "be nice" and go along. If 
someone made this proposal they really believe in it and who are you to 
question it? You're just causing friction.

This approach may be a good one if the proposal doesn't really affect anything 
seriously and can be easily changed but on a more substantive decision, it 
won't help the group improve the proposal or rethink their assumptions.

One of our members once said, "We don't have any problem with consensus, only 
with objections." It took me a long time to realize that what she meant was 
that we like the idea of consensus, but we don't know what to do with 
objections. There are several approaches to objections that we often forget:

1. Clarify the objections. Often they are based on misconceptions or lack of 
information. Some people do not read or do not have time to read, and often 
don't attend all the meetings in a topic.

2. Shorten the time frame of the proposal and include clear evaluation 
procedures it becomes a trial. Measured to see if positive or negative 
expectations are met. The need when there is disagreement is for data. No 
proposal is forever.

3. Narrow the scope of the proposal. If the issue is one prompted by 
maintenance of the living room, does it have to apply to the whole commonhouse?

4. Restate the proposal. Sometimes the wording is offensive to someone. Words 
have many connotations. We once spent hours discussing an objection before we 
finally understood that the person was not objecting the idea but to the words 
"have to". "No one tells me what I have to do." We changed "have" to "need" and 
she was happy.

5. Exempt the person from the proposal. if exempting the person is not likely 
to set a precedent or affect other decisions, make accommodations. We once had 
a member who was over 90, a life-long pacifist and anti-techology, who objected 
to paying for TV service in the CH. Exempting him was easy, affected no other 
decisions, and made everyone else happy.

The goal is to create harmony and move forward. Not moving forward also creates 
disharmony, possibly more!

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC
"Happiness belongs to those who are easily contented." — Aristotle