[Procedures] [candidate-development] appropriate and inappropriate uses of the consensus process

[Merelice]

Hi,

I'm still catching up with the emails sent during my week away at the
end of June. I am copying this -- and will forward Gary's quotes from
Bob's Rules -- to the Procedures Committee. This identifies some of
the concerns that have been raised. The Procedures Committee needs to
figure out how to get this kind of input from a wider group of GRP
members -- along with suggestions for solving these problems.

There are times when a State Committee meeting is too late a stage of
proposal development for a genuine consensus process. In some cases,
it might be better to have a proposal actually take shape in a
StateCom meeting.

Merelice


On 6/23/08, Larry Ely <tetrahedrons at crocker.com> wrote:
> GRP,
>
>  The following points from Wikilpedia about the inappropriate uses of the
> consensus process are worth thinking about given the current makeup of
> StateCom.  I, for one, see a lot of sleepwalking behavior in our group
> dynamics - we say we are this and that, we hold up the 10 KV that describe a
> cohesive band of trusting warriors against the barbarians at the gates, but
> how we really function belies what we say and hold about ourselves.
> Frankly, using the consensus process given the current state of our human
> material is bound to fail.
>
>  Larry
>
>
>  Critics of consensus decision-making often observe that the process, while
> potentially effective for small groups of motivated or trained individuals
> with a sufficiently high degree of
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_%28sociology%29>affinity,
> has a number of possible shortcomings, notably:
>    * Preservation of the Status quo: In decision-making bodies that use
> formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block
> agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing
> state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can
> continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would
> like it to change.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-17>[18]
>    * Susceptibility to disruption: Giving the right to block proposals to
> all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible
> minority or individual. Furthermore, "opposing such obstructive behavior
> [can be] construed as an attack on freedom of speech and in turn [harden]
> resolve on the part of the individual to defend his or her
> position."<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-18>[19]
> As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the least
> accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating.
>    * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox>Abilene
> paradox: Consensus decision-making is susceptible to all forms of
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink>groupthink, the
> most dramatic being the
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox>Abilene
> paradox. In the Abilene paradox, a group can unanimously agree on a course
> of action that no individual member of the group desires because no one
> individual is willing to go against the perceived will of the
> decision-making
> body.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-19>[20]
> On the other hand, consensuses specifically asking for, and wanting to hear,
> unresolved concerns and reservations, tend to diminish this
> effect.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-20>[21]
>    * Time Consuming: Since consensus decision-making focuses on discussion
> and seeks the input of all participants, it can be a time-consuming process.
> This is a potential liability in situations where decisions need to be made
> speedily or where it is not possible to canvass the opinions of all
> delegates in a reasonable period of time. Additionally, the time commitment
> required to engage in the consensus decision-making process can sometimes
> act as a barrier to participation for individuals unable or unwilling to
> make the
> commitment.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-21>[22]
>  ="
>
> _______________________________________________
>  candidate-development mailing list
>  candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>
>