Welcome to the 'Group Process & Conflict Resolution' forum on the Transition US website. The following is an edited list of comments made during Starhawk's webinar on 11/11/09. If you missed this online event you can see a recording at http://transitionus.org/online_training_archives.
Let the conversation continue!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Resources
The following resources were suggested (via chat):
- Bonfire <bonfire@iifac.org> Bea Briigs sends a monthly update
- “ On Conflict and Consensus” by CT Lawrence Butler and Amy Rothstein
- “ A Manual for Group Facilitators” by The Center for Conflict Resolution
- “ Technology of Participation” thru Institute of Cultural Affairs & International Facilitators Association
- http://consensus.net/ has a great, complete, and free "textbook" on the consensus process.
- “ Creating a Life Together” by Diana Leafe Christian
- “Public Conversations Project: Fostering Dialogue Across Divides”
Tips
The following selected tips were offered (via chat):
- Keeping each other informed/communicating well seems can go a long ways to use consensus for the important things
- The "cost" of consensus decision making can result in savings around the implementation
- Building in review of agreements periodically and the timing of that as part of modified consensus
- Keeping the consensus critical thru regular on line communication and celebrations of successes
- Another way to look at blocks is that you should only block if you'd have to leave the group if the proposal passed.
- What about building in review of agreements periodically and the timing of that as part of modified consensus
- It seems that one of the most important factors in Consensus decision making is an agreement and clear communication of the values, ethics and purpose of the group.
- A blocker can be asked for a statement of consensus to see where the group is on an alternative
- The color card system is a system of cards which people hold up to indicate that they agree, agree with reservations, have a clarification to make, have a question and so on.
- Facilitator training is crucial for quality content and facilitator plays neutral role
- Make VERY sure the Vibeswatcher doesn't have a strong opinion about anything being presented at the meeting.
Questions
The following selected questions were asked and maybe remain unanswered (via chat):
- How have some of you offered training in decisions making to your working groups? Have you used professional trainers, in-house, or other?
- If one is a member of a community but is also facilitating...when is it permissible to take that facilitator hat off to offer input
- Do you need a different person for each role?
- With a small initiating group of 3 or 4 how is it best to use consensus facilitation?
- How might a person deal with a group (board or whatever) in which almost all of the people are stuck in one narrow view?
- What is some thinking about including everyone interested in a meeting as opposed to just a select group?
- What's the best way for dealing with hidden agendas and power plays?
- What about asking a block what it would take to remove the block?
If I could edit my post, I'd add after "Another group certainly could choose and form for that purpose":
Indeed, it's important that one does, because such response to each other is the essence of the necessary shift of values and priorities.
The notes evoke much -- too much for one reply.
D. W. Johnson and F. P. Johnson, in Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, gave everyone a valuable taxonomy of 20 functions that each group requires for viability and health. Remarkably, they form balanced sets: 10 task functions and 10 maintenance functions. Responsible group members will build acquaintance with the 20 and recognize their respective historic inclinations/style (their various start lines) among them. For the group's sake, each will strive to upgrade her/his participation by fluently performing more and more functions in real time, during the group's sessions.
For the group's sake is a key phrase. Everyone must come to recognize and accept that a group is an entity with a mystery, meaning and delicate life of its own. Everyone must view participation as chosen contribution in support of that life. All join because they value the proposed/developed achievement(s). Apart from performing functions, each should contribute strengths as nearly exclusively as possible. As individuals accomplish this, a group gains clear views of recruitment priorities and its members remain energetic.
People who participate must have eyes on one prize during participation; local community resilience, for example. Immediate needs of individual participants can and probably must be an interest of the group, but its purpose remains the one prize. That deserves emphasis: the interest is not the purpose. Seeing that the various individual needs are met is not the group's work per se. Another group certainly could choose and form for that purpose.
During weeks and months when group members are responsibly upgrading their fluency with the various functions, facilitators can ensure they are performed and practiced via meeting agenda design and explicit assignment of roles in meetings, either wholesale, in advance, or pointedly, on the fly ("Marion, please be a communication helper during the next segment.").
Facilitators can help keep eyes on the prize by noticing and quickly arranging for offline attention to individual needs. The group is thus interested and caring, but also careful for itself, since any frustrated member might choose to withdraw her/his contributions, further diminishing the life of the group.
Activating all 20 functions goes a long, long way, but probably not all the way. Next time I'll introduce a method of sparking and encouraging different kinds of thinking, so as to avoid "groupthink."