Consensus vs Consent

A common misconception is that Consent and Concensus are the same. I have been given this some thought for a while, and just as I had more or less let the topic wander off the fringe of my attention, I received a few emails directly relating to it, so I decided to post a summary of what has come my way.

First, I will copy a few definitions of Concensus (and attempt to cite as accurately as possible):

1. Consensus/ is a group decision (which some members may not feel is the best decision, but which they can all live with, support and commit themselves to not undermine), arrived at without voting, through a process whereby the issues are fully aired, all members feel they have been adequately heard, in which everyone has equal power and responsibility, and different degrees of influence by virtue of individual stubbornness or charisma are avoided so that all are satisfied with the process. The process requires the members to be emotionally present and engaged, frank in a loving, mutually respectful manner, sensitive to each other; to be selfless, dispassionate, and capable of emptying themselves and possessing a paradoxical awareness of precariousness of both people and time (including knowing when the solution is satisfactory, and that it is time to stop and not reopen the discussion until such time as the group determines a need for revision.)

From A World Waiting To Be Born_ by M. Scott Peck, pg. 291. Copyrighted. / This definition was written by a group, Valley Diagnostic and Surgical Clinic of Harlingen Texas, as part of a community.

My initial reaction to this is: WOW! Sounds great, but how many groups can achieve this? Let me relate a translated version of Gilles Charest's comment in relation to this definition. His words coin the issues related to concensus:

1. Concensus requires too many conditions related to the quality of the people or their intentions.
2. Concensus is not operational. The process for arriving at a consensus decision is unclear.
3. Concensus is based on a more or less idyllic democracy where ultimately the individual must convince the majority of the validity of his arguments, otherwise he must have the generosity to join.

In my next post, I will go over the definition of Consent, and the process to reach it. It is well-defined, very well-structured, and very, very efficient.

Back Online, and So Much More...

Well, after one month on the road vacationing and attending leadership and Sociocratic training, I am glad to be back to work. My mind is full of fresh thoughts and ideas, and I am eager to get working on the implementation at the College and the International Conference for next June.

During my travels, I attended my third 3-day sociocracy training session (out of six). It was a wonderful experience, with many thought provoking concepts and activities. The course was held in Très-Saint-Rédempteur, a small village an hour out of Montreal.



The course was held there due to the fact that the municipality is amazingly progressive and constantly looking at new ways of doing things. One of their great achievements has been to launch an internet Coop a few years ago. That Coop was born as a direct result of the major Internet Providers' refusal to provide high-speed internet to the small 700-resident community (not enough profits to be generated). This was a serious issue for the town, as many residents are young entrepreneurs who cannot do their work without the internet access. The municipality is drawing young people from Montreal who seek life-balance, combining nature with modern-day work. Without internet, many such young entrepreneurs would either not move to Très-Saint-Rédempteur, or worse, some would have to leave.

With that prospect in mind, a small group of people, some part of the city council, others volunteers, got together and founded a Coop, CSUR, with the goal of providing high-speed internet access to all residents of the area. Four years later, with multiple hundred customers, the Coop has been identified by the Québec governement as a potential internet solution model for all of rural municipalities in the province.

Refusing to sit on such praise, the Coop board has taken on to further its development and take on a more active role withing the municipality. There are projects for a green affordable-housing complex, an equestrian centre, a network of trails, and so much more. But with such a major endeavour, there are issues of governance. How should the municipality and the Coop work together? How should decisions that affect many, if not most, residents be made? Is it at all possible to avoid power struggles, personality conflicts, and "small town" politics?

Exploring possibilities, the Coop has decided to attempt an implementation of sociocracy. They have obtained government support for this, and will work with Sociogest, a Quebec consulting firm that specializes in Sociocracy.

It was wonderful to meet these pioneers while on location for the course. These people are dedicated, high-spirited, and have given themselves a life mission of making things better for themselves, their community, and the future. I will keep an eye wide open to see how things develop over the years. I have no doubt they will become a model for the world!

Yukon Conference on Dynamic Governance

The web site is finally online, albeit in a limited version.

Yukon College and the Centre for Sociocratic Governance - North America are co-hosting an International Conference on Dynamic Governance:

The River Flows Both Ways - A New Era of Organizational Governance
June 14-15-16 2010, in Whitehorse, Yukon
View Larger Map

This will be an event you will NOT want to miss! The full web site should be online by mid-July, and i will keep posting information on this Blog.

You can view Yukon College on Facebook


Also, check out this great site relating to self-organization:
Our Next Step Together

Taking the Time to Take Time

Well folks, I have suddenly come up with a Paramount Objection to most of my extracurricular activities, and the reason is that I am simply in need of a break. A real one!

So, this will be my last posting for the next few weeks. It will allow me to collect my thoughts, process much of what has happened over the past year, and hopefully obtain better clarity over Dynamic Governance and its implementation at the College.

For this last posting, I want to follow up on my last entry, where I discussed how I felt I had let my Implementation Group down by allowing the group to ignore an issue that had spontaneously arisen (around whether to hold the meeting outside or not). As it happens, at our next meeting (which happened a week later) as facilitator I decided to amend the agenda and resolve the issue from the previous meeting.

I decided to do this for a few reasons. First, as people were coming in, I heard the comment being made that perhaps "today, if we are lucky, we could go outside". Second, I felt that for the group to become solid and effective, we had to be able to resolve what appeared to be a simple issue. So I set to steer the group in that direction.

The way we tackled the issue was simple. I explained why I wanted to go back to it, and then I proceeded to ask the group to come up with an idea, a solution, or a proposal. Someone then proposed that we go outside for that meeting. So we treated that proposal as any other, and within about 15 minutes, it was decided that the next meeting would be outside, weather permitting, so that everyone would know in advance and be able to prepare for it.

When I asked for a comment round at the end of that decision, a few interesting comments were brought up. First, many thought that it was great to actually take the time to learn how to work together; second, a few were not too keen on that, rather, they would have preferred to go straight to the business items, but were ok with going along; third (and this one was during the closing round), two people mentioned that they felt I had taken a lot of space in the discussions, especially during the debate over our Vision Statement. The question was whether I took so much space because I was facilitator or because I had drafted the Vision statement.

At that moment it became clear to me that the time had come to have an election for a new facilitator. This will build the capacity of the group and allow the members to get engaged at a different level.

The main thought I will be leaving on holidays with is that Sociocracy is much, much more than an organizational structure and a decision-making process. I will write more on these thoughts once I have had time to rest and wander...

Until then, feel free to post comments or email me. I will never be too far from an internet connection...

From Cognition to Emotion

I had a neat experience during a circle meeting not too long ago that taught me a lot about group dynamics, and also about some of the challenges around implementing DG. About a dozen of us were meeting for an hour to do some planning for a workgroup, on a spectacular day of sun and warmth. Now, for those of you who are not familiar with the Yukon, we get long winters, and when we get nice weather, many like to be outside! So, during the opening round, someone made the comment that he would like to be outside for this meeting. Following that, in my role of facilitator, I suggested that the person make that into a proposal. Without having the time to formulate it, another member of the group objected, stating that he did not do well in hot weather, and that if the group wanted to go outside, and that we should just go ahead and get the meeting done.

I then proceeded to explore a possible alternative, such as finding a location with shade, to which the person replied that we could go outside and he would simply go home. What struck me was the immediate rise of tension around the table. It was so thick and people were so uncomfortable that I then proceeded to see if the group could live with being inside (bad move on my part as a facilitator, as I feel I let my guard down and missed a great opportunity to help the group grow as a unit). I saw people's resignation to that idea and we proceeded with the meeting.

So what have I learned with that situation? First, that the role of Facilitator is a tough one that requires a lot of knowledge, experience, leadership, and trust in oneself. Second, that there is a difference between "understanding" DG, "experiencing" DG, and "living" DG. Third, that DG requires a lot more time than I anticipated.

It is one thing to implement a circle structure and to explain what "zero objections" means. But it is entirely different to "experience" it. The tension that is generated through objections can either be avoided by dismissing the issue to be resolved (or by doing a poor job at resolving it) or be harnessed to become a driver or creativity and team development. Teams that allow themselves the privilege to stay in the moment, live the tension, work with it, will become that much stronger, more efficient, and creative. The members will feel connected with one another and feel a greater sense of belonging both to the group and the institution. This all happens when the information gets transferred from the head into the heart.

I am so thrilled by this new group I am feeling hopeful, energized, driven, and giddy!

The Energy of One, the Power of the Many

The Implementation Group had its second meeting this week. Fewer people showed up, about ten total. But what a productive and energetic hour that was! We brainstormed on the Mission of the group, and set up a committee of four to work on a few proposals for next week's meeting. This is where Google Docs comes in handy. In less than 24 hours, we had a solid draft of three proposals that had been edited by three different individuals! I will be adding some final touches today, send it out to the committee for their final approval and edits, and then the entire Implementation Group will be getting a copy to review before next week's meeting.

This is DG at work! Get people to work together on what matters, and then get them to decide on what gets approved. Once that has been done, the energy is focused, the team spirit is high, and the boat is going strong.

I like where that group is heading. It is completely self-organizing and the proposals that will be presented set the guidelines which will inform the activities of the group for the year to come. Although the document is far from being final, I feel like posting the first of the proposals on the blog. This will allow everyone to see the progression.


Proposal #1

It is proposed that the following Vision and Mission Statements be adopted for DGIG:


Vision Statement
We envision Yukon College as an institution where all staff have a deep understanding of Sociocratic principles and methods, which is reflected by the circle structures in every area of the organization. This results in positive and satisfying relationships, as well as a high level of work quality and productivity.


Mission Statement
For the Academic year 2009-2010, the DGI Group will provide access to Sociocratic learning opportunities and work to support the adoption and use of dynamic governance at Yukon College.

Overall Aims
A. To support the on-going implementation of Dynamic Governance at Yukon College.
B. To reflect on, and develop, tools and strategies to enhance the DG experience at Yukon College
C. To develop and implement an evaluation system for DG Implementation


As I said, this is the second or third draft. I will post the final version once we have approved it, and will post on the process that lead to it... The energy I get from the group is fantastic and I am thrilled to be a part of it!

Stay tuned, there is much, much more to come...

Energy Through the Many

I don't remember feeling so nervous at the onset of a meeting for a long time. The jitters I was feeling today were reminiscent of my early teaching years, when I still felt on shaky grounds. Thirteen colleagues came to the Implementation meeting today. Wow! And another ten said they wanted to come but could not make it. I felt such a fresh breeze of energy! And I should mention that some of these people knew next to nothing about DG, other than the fact that it is happening in one form or another withing the College.

I brought forth a proposal, presented it, and allowed for the process to do its thing. We collected questions, reactions, and objections. We sought consent, and we obtained it. It was amazing! The result is that the group will meet again on Tuesday to begin its self-determination.

I don't know why I did not seek this earlier on... but I am definitely making a clear note with red ink in my personal notebook: when working on a collective endeavour, involve the collective from the get-go!

Interestingly, it appears that there is still resistance within the ranks of management. So the group wanted to stress that its purpose would be one of support of existing circles, and future ones that want to implement. This group is not about trying to bring in more circles. I hope this will relieve some of the fears that may exist higher up.

I would be sad if DG had for an effect to bring us a few years behind, when employees and management were split by an ever widening rift. It seems that over the past year or so, that rift was being filled. It would be a shame to see it being dug out and growing again.

I am always amazed and humbled by the collective wisdom of the groups I am priviledged to work with... it amazes me to see and hear the creativity that abounds all around me. DG seems to be a great conduit to channel it and allow it to blossom.

I can hardly wait until the next Impementation meeting!