Consensus decision-making ?

February 24, 2008 - 4:36pm — Toban B
in

A blog post about consensus decision-making -
http://mollymew.blogspot.com/2008/02/cats-meow-issues-surrounding-consensus.html
with a link to a web forum discussion about this.

Remarks from the blog post author - 
The consensus model is "an open invitation for ... personal manipulation."  "It is also totally inappropriate where the issues being discussed are of any real importance and especially where there are real political differences that don't deserve to be argued into a false oblivion, only to resurface later (often at the very second when exhausted participants finally and mercifully exit the stage of the all too long meeting). In addition to this it gives huge power to salaried 'professional leftists' and those amongst us with no jobs nor family (and with exceedingly strong bladders ie coffee drinkers are penalized)."

2.8
Average: 2.8 (5 votes)

Trackback URL for this post:

http://londoncommons.net/trackback/5240

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
March 9, 2008 - 8:07pm — Dan H
Dan H's picture

consensus nightmare(s) flashback

I just saw this now...great post Toban/Alex!

I couldn't sum up the problems I have experienced with consensus decision making, in particular two large group experiences which deeply angered me, any better than the blogger you linked to.
(Though I have seen it work many times in large settings.)

Unstructured and undemocratic consensus decision making is more tyrannical than Roberts Rules.

February 25, 2008 - 7:41pm — Thomas Czermak
Thomas Czermak's picture

The "tyranny of one" ... was

The "tyranny of one"

... was one of my favorite quotes from the discussion at BlackCat.

An analysis missing from that discussion is that of numbers. Numbers are crucial to successfully grassroots organizing. If you have more than let's say 11-13 people than consensus decision making is rather fruitless. Pass a certain threshold and the chemistry of a group changes dramatically. Consensus is intimate and personal because it relies on empathy of the highest order - a group mind - but can swiftly become orgiastic - too close and personal for some - if the numbers increase beyond that threshold. Think of it as having a psycho-social limit to people's mind-reading abilities.

I've been trying to ascertain some sort of number via Network Theory for some time but I think a friend of mine came up with it: Thirteen. Hit this unlucky number and you ought to be organizing differently - often with different objectives in mind/agenda. Of course, there are various situations where consensus decision making is not the best method period - some of which were mentioned in the forum. It also often works well with a group that has existing chemistry. But I also don't think consensus should be used in isolation, especially when certain processes of the group can be done in isolation in smaller groups, or when the group in question has to engage with yet a larger group - again, calling for a different decision making method having surpassed the threshold, Thirteen.

Of course, the number could of been eleven, I can't quite remember exactly. But thirteen just helps to underscore the message with all the energy of superstition.