Consensus: A definition

Hi all,

Here is that description of the process of consensus decision making that I have been referring to in our meetings...

Consensus

"…It does not mean that everyone agrees on a particular outcome. It does mean that everyone has been involved in the process, and that every one agrees to test a particular outcome for its workability.
Most descision making situations do not have as an inherent component only one best solution. If such were the case there would be no need to decide anything. Consensus involves the complete exploration of a particular situation with the recognition that there are going to be conflicting points of view, and that it is important that these come into the open during this process. These differences are not resolved just because a decision is reached.

Individuals who are not in agreement with the “majority” perspective do not just give up their differences and comply with the majority. They sit back and wait for some way to sabotage the outcome, or to say, “ I told you that wouldn’t work.” These outcomes are likely because a competitive process is established where the goal is to ‘win’ rather to arrive at a workable outcome. Since winning is the predominant goal, all of the dynamics described earlier emerge in a miniture form during this process.

Stereotypes of both paries influence what they hear the other party saying, and power gaining, rather than power generation is the outcome. A nonconsensus descision making process results in the dominant coalition in the process or larger organisational context retaining their power base, and the lesser coalition looking for ways to regain their percieved loss of influence. Immediately they begin to develop strategies to regain their lost “clout” and prestige, or at least to minimise their overall losses by gaining ground in other parts of the organisation or in future descision making situations.

Consensus is a critical value for organisations, not because it is good in and of itself (although that is true), but rather because it leads to better quality decisions, with more investment in implementation. There is less focus on decision making to protect organisational boundries and authority distribution, and more focus on decision making to solve diffulcities facing the organization".

P 138-139. William A Kraus, Collaboration in Organisations, Alternatives to Hierarchy. Human Sciences Press, 1980, New York.

Also, I was chatting with Sue Shone, an advocate for ihc who has had lots of experience working for collectives such as rape crisis and womens refuge and she has promised to send through some relevant resources on collective structures to our email address.
She had some interesting things to say about the importance of the place for individuality in collective bodies, that at their best they worked against a culture of individualism, but for a culture of diversity. Sue also suggested that a succinct one page charter that outlined some goals (a re-occuring suggestion in our blog) and guidelines for process might be helpfull for ongoing functioning (and perhaps a good alternative to an artists statement about ourselves).

Anyway, Merry Xmas and congrats to Mel who has just been made the new assistant curator for the Govett Brewster Art Gallery!!!!