Occupy consensus making, and why I cannot stand it
hrafn wrote a very thoughtful post about the Occupy movement, their consensus decision making process, and how she has been handling her contribution. and as I read it, I thought about the consensus based decision processes I've either witnessed, or been part of first hand, and all I can say is: go you, but O HALE no, not for me.
I've seen a lot of what ( Read more... )
I've seen a lot of what ( Read more... )
I would recommend that people actually experience something before dismissing it completely or proclaiming it is awful because it must be exactly like an example you experienced somewhere else. Not all hierarchical meetings are run the same way, nor are all consensus-based meetings run the same way.
The badly run meetings I've seen have all been bad the same way, and that is true regardless of whether there is a formal process or not, and regardless of whether it is a hierarchical group or not. The failure modes are pretty uniform no matter what: no one keeps people on task, so one or two people dominate, or drag things off-topic, nothing gets done.
Most meetings I've been to in my life have run by informal processes. Sometimes that works well, and sometimes it doesn't - and the same group that works well one night can get NOTHING done another. The Occupy meetings are the only meetings I've seen with a formal process. Sometimes that works well, and sometimes it doesn't . . .
The role of the facilitators is to keep people on task, which both prevents loud mouthed people from jumping in and dominating things at every chance they can get, and gives people who are timid or hate interrupting a chance to speak up.
The meetings I have been to where there is no formal process have been most likely to be dominated by loud people.
I have seen no "inclusive rhetoric which seems to assume we're all in kindergarten;" what I have seen is a way of handling large groups to attempt to both allow a range of feedback AND keep people on track. When there's a large group, there has to be -some- kind of process that people agree to, whether that is "this person is in charge, and when they say, 'wrap it up, we need to move on'" everyone listens or the process in place at Occupy Boston, or whatever.
At the General Assemblies, if too many people have disappeared between the start of the GA and the time at which people are supposed to discuss proposals, the facilitators make a point of asking the people still there if they think there are enough people there to make a decision. While the drawback to that is that this can slow the decision-making down, it also acts to prevent a small number of people deciding to implement something a lot of people would hate. So there's not "'consensus' of the hardy hangers-on."
Meetings I have been at where 1 or 2 mouthy people have gone on AND ON are the meetings at which there was NOT a facilitator to keep things on track. So, actually, no, we're not forced to sit and listen to everyone go on and on and on because 'that's the process.'
It is certainly not perfect. There are people who are really confused by the formal consensus process at GAs and feel like they aren't ever able to speak up, because they misunderstand when they can speak up, and so they are told to shut up - and speak up at another time. I don't know how to address that kind of problem :\ And, like any other meeting with dozens of people, it can be slow - but it can also be very quick; the proposal to spend a bunch of money on emergency supplies for the weekend's bad weather was agreed to and implemented very quickly. OH MY GOD A CONSENSUS DECISION IN AN EMERGENCY!
I agree that a properly run hierarchy works well and also involves consensus - it's just a different, & informal - process by which it is reached.
The trick is to control the executive, so they only make decisions which require executive authority.
Yeah, that would be a good trick, wouldn't it? If you have someone in power who can't be bothered to communicate with the group, either to seek a wide range of opinions or even to announce "this thing is under consideration," who makes snap decisions that ARE bad, but there isn't anyone with the power to either slow down the decisions or force that person to talk with more people first, what do you do? (I speak out of frustration with a group that claims to be flat and non-hierarchical but which in fact is not.)
It sounds like the people commenting here don't have a problem with decisions reached by consensus, as much as a formal consensus process in a meeting.
Reply
But formal consensus modes I have experienced (and watched online, through video of Occupy assemblies) are emotionally grating for me personally. This may be because I have spent considerable time studying more formal methods (read: parliamentary procedure; it was (and still is, somewhat) a hobby). It may be because lots and lots and *lots* of time are spent explaining things. About half way through the "longing" (opposite of briefing), I'm already tired and want to go home. It may be something else. That said, I agree that my issue is probably more with the formal process. It contains too much process for my liking :-)
Reply
I go back and forth on what's preferable. I hate long meetings. I especially hate long meetings that would be shorter if people had come to -previous- meetings so they knew what was going on and we didn't all have to sit through YET ANOTHER retelling of every detail. And if you do a lot of fine-tuning of something outside of meetings, then the meetings themselves can be more efficient, but is that the most efficient use of that other person's time? It requires lots of little meetings instead of a few bigger ones. It seems to be how things get done in most organizations, so it must work well enough.
My major problem with hierarchical structures is when the people in charge believe that because they are in charge, they don't need to tell anyone what they are up to.
Reply
Leave a comment