Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: decision-making process

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Mary Ann Clark <drmaryann49 [at] mac.com> wrote:

> But there is light at the end of the tunnel. After those few messy decisions 
> we have a much more smoothly running process. Consensus is slow. There's 
> always the push to just vote and be done with it--which essentially means 
> letting the majority overpower the minority. Stick with it and in the end 
> you'll have a good process.

In terms of process, I would add the value of rounds. We had a decision to make 
this month about the color of a new cork floor. A dots on a posted list showed 
a majority preferring a particular light color. When the proposal came from the 
facilities team to replace the floor in the light color, I agreed to the light 
color but said I wanted to explain my reasons for believing the darker color 
would be better. People had chosen the lighter color because it was exactly 
like what we had but we had also darkened the color of the surrounding wood 
floor and there would be too little contrast. Neither enhanced the look of the 
other.

When I gave my reasons for the dark color. No one or only one or two spoke for 
the lighter color. When we did a "temperature check" a large majority raised 
their hand for the darker color. No one was more surprised than I was.

The decision was called for the darker color and 4 people, who had said nothing 
in the meeting, stood aside, and then one changed her mind and objected. The 
facilitator said we had to start over. I was angry. They didn't participate in 
the discussion at all and only stood aside and objected when the "temperature 
check" didn't go their way. Not fair.

After discussion during a break they agreed to the darker color. In the 
evaluation I said we needed a much clearer process in future meetings. The 
non-speakers said they hadn't said anything because they had assumed the dot 
exercise was the decider. They characterized it as "overwhelming." 

_Then_ the darker color was not available. We were sent the wrong samples. But 
there was another color that was between the two colors that was almost $800 
more. Another decision.

The facilitator contacted me before the meeting to ask what process I thought 
would be clear. I said if we are going to vote, we have to call it a vote and 
not a temperature check. And if we voted we needed to do a ballot, not 
handraising which is totally subject to influence by friends, etc. He said a 
'temperature check' is not a vote and ballots were too much trouble. I objected 
again. And sent him our bylaws on voting. It would require consent to use a 
majority vote, notice to those not present, and a second meeting.

I suggested the sociocratic process which is a round and the facilitator making 
a judgement call at the end. Then if anyone objected to his call, we would need 
resolution of those objections.

After the round, the decision was clearly the lighter color, partly because of 
the cost. But the important thing was the tone in the room. In a round we could 
hear why each person wanted one or the other AND we were dealing with each 
other as people who had feelings. Hands raised and ballots don't allow you to 
do that. It's a win-lose contest. A round means listening other's feelings as 
well as being able to express our own.

Because we did a round we also were not focusing on arguments in a back and 
forth way as often happens in discussion based on a queue. And everyone was 
expected to speak up. Even if they only said lighter or darker.

The room was very calm and I don't think there were any hard feelings when the 
decision was called, and no objections.

So I highly encourage rounds and to continue doing them. When objections are 
stated, the objectors need to hear everyone's feelings, opinions, 
arguments--whatever you want to call them. A focus on the objectors can 
polarize just like a majority vote.

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