Well, the answer, in my
experience, is all too often.
The most common problem
I’ve encountered is what I will indelicately term the ‘bully factor.’ It’s always deliberate, if perhaps
unconscious. It’s simply a fact of life
that some voices carry more weight than others.
And it has nothing to do with volume.
I’ve just experienced,
once again, decision-making by the ‘bully factor’ trying to pass itself off as
consensus. When there is a call for a
sweeping decision that doesn’t allow for individual voices to speak on
different perspectives on an issue, it’s extremely difficult for one or more individuals to voice an objection. Even when the facilitator asks for any
objections or concerns, anyone voicing such concerns risks derision and
disdain, resulting in one’s concerns being dismissed. That person (or persons) may be viewed as
being an antagonistic malcontent rather than a valued contributor to the
process. Hence, alienation and a
breakdown of communal trust.
I am not an anarchist, by
whatever definition. I can observe
hierarchical structures in Nature. I
think hierarchy is a natural and valuable arrangement. What I think is not healthy, however, is
ossified hierarchical structures in which those invested in their own sense of
power, their control over the actions of others, and seek to hold tightly to
their positions of authority. This is
the downside of strictly maintained hierarchies and accounts for the appeal of anarchy (“without ruler”)[1]
and consensus process
I think the sharing of
power is complex, but essentially easy if one approachs the playground with the
intent to ‘play well with others.’ That
means that the responsibility to be sure every voice that wishes to be heard is
afforded the opportunity to speak rests on everyone. Talkers like me must take care to back off a
bit and allow more timid speakers to voice their thoughts. By the same token, more introverted folks
need to assert themselves more than is their nature to do.
Two, sometimes three,
other participants bear responsibility for assuring that every voice is heard. The two are the facilitator and the group at
large. If the group is large, perhaps
inclined towards contention, or even so enthusiastic about an issue that
process gets lost, it may choose a temporary ‘vibeswatcher,’ to be the third
party seeking to assure good process.
Underlying all consensus
process is the implied power of any
participant to call process when proper, agreed-upon process is not being
observed.
I’m disturbed by a recent
incident of what I consider bad process and allowing the bully factor to
triumph. These kinds of transgressions
are more likely to occur when a meeting, or series of meetings, has been going
on for a long while, like at the end of the day or when only a few items
needing resolution are left on the agenda and everyone wants to be done with
the work.
Consensus process does
not work well in the following circumstances:
★
There is a lack of mutual trust among the
participants.
★
The group is too large for efficient process.
★
There are distinct factions within the larger
group.
The first and third items
above are related, in that when factions develop, mutual trust diminishes.
So for me Rule No. One for effective, honest
consensus process decision-making is trust. It’s not enough to know your collaborators
well; one must respect one’s
collaborators and trust in their
goodwill and their good-faith efforts to achieve shared goals. Without trust and mutual respect, groups
fragment into factions, often mistrustful of each other. Actions taken in situations of mistrust and
factionalization within a group have not allowed for the best of everyone to be
expressed. They do a disservice to the
group itself and all of its members.
All the flow charts in
the world will not make up for lack of trust within a group.
