Wednesday, January 14 2009 @ 12:31 AM GMT+4 Contributed by: spoon
If there is anyone out there who is well-versed in consensus and group decision-making and can articulate their democratic underpinnings would you please get in touch. I need some help in talking about this with clarity. spoonagave@yahoo.com
Authored by: SK-B on Wednesday, January 14 2009 @ 03:42 PM GMT+4
I learned about consensus while attending the Brooklyn Friends Meeting in the 1980s.
The major point is that real consensus is done in a spirit of respect for each individual, and that the spirit of consensus rather than the form is what is really important.
At the Friend's meeting, I was on diametrically opposite sides of a controversial issue from a man named John Barlow. I was accustomed to political meetings and which winning was the point and I was not used to functioning in a group in which building relationships was the focus.
The matter which I was interested in had been referred to the Peace and Social Justice Committee. One Sunday, after worship, John approached me and said:
"Steven, your concern is going to be discussed by the Peace and Social Justice Committee this coming Thursday. Can you come? It is very important that you be there."
That blew me away because it was something which would never happen at the political groups I had been involved in until then. The standard operating procedure in left-wing political groups would be to marshal your forces to attend a meeting and hope that your opponents' supporters would not show up so that your side could dominate.
But here was an "opponent" who was saying: What matters is that we have a good discussion at which everyone can fully consider all points of view.
I have seen groups (particularly leftish groups in Brattleboro) which utter the word "consensus," but in reality the "consensus" is manipulated by a few dominant personalities. In those groups "consensus" is used to shut people up, as in: "You are going against our consensus." Of course that is the opposite of the spirit of consensus, which is to hear all viewpoints and give them all serious consideration.
In our local board of Realtors -- which is formally run on a basis of voting, not consensus -- I have had the pleasure to take part in controversial issues in which members listened carefully to one another, respected differences of opinion, worked to address differences rather than to steamroller oppositions, and ended up with better decisions, and more cohesion as a result. This example shows that the spirit of consensus does not necessarily abide only in a format of consensus.
My understanding is that consensus is rooted in a belief that a group can function based on respect for the single individuals which comprise that group. A group truly dedicated to consensus recognizes that the lone dissenter may have an important insight which should not be ignored.
Most goal-oriented groups feel that they must move forward, and cannot afford the time to address concerns raised by a single individual.
In a consensus group, occasionally in an impasse, the individual may "step aside," meaning that they still maintain their disagreement with the majority, but in that instance they are willing to allow the group to proceed.
Consensus is not compromise. Compromise says, let's each give in a bit and meet halfway. In negotiating the price of a commodity, that might make sense; but a matter involving justice should not be treated as "horse trading" in which one's integrity can be bargained away in order to reach an agreement.
Consensus takes a lot of work, it takes time, it takes patience. The great thing is that it works, and it is worth the effort.
Authored by: cgrotke on Wednesday, January 14 2009 @ 03:56 PM GMT+4
Reaching out to "opponents" is a technique that the folks who went
through the Bleiker Training were taught, albeit a bit differently than
consensus building as you describe it. Maybe some of them could offer up
some tips, too.
http://www.iifac.org/bonfire/createIssue.php