Consensus and the Collaborative Paradigm

Consensus

By Steven Saint Thomas

We humans both compete and collaborate with great gusto. It’s typically one or the other, but both are instinctive. At any given moment we are either competing or collaborating, sometimes alternating moment by moment.

Sometimes we do both at the same time. In team sports, for example, two teams compete to score the most points and win the game. At the same time, members of the respective teams are collaborating with each other to advance the team’s position. Collaboration advances team performance – competition sorts out the winners from the losers.

Experts say the instinct for collaboration goes back to the earliest humans. People formed clans and tribes to better survive in a hostile world. Tribalism flourished for thousands of years because banding together made sense.

But in a Competitive Paradigm – where one wins at the other’s expense – tribalism has produced the world’s greatest tragedies. Wars, genocide and slavery all exist to the present day because one tribe puts its interests over another’s.

The need for a Collaborative Paradigm – where everybody wins in the pursuit of the common good – is greater than ever. The time is now!

We have entered a new millennium and a New World. This New World is emerging from the Machine Age, which was marked by hierarchy and competition. The New World is marked by the flattening of pyramidal organizations, decisions being made on the lower rungs of the ladder, teams and groups working together.

The Collaborative Paradigm is rooted in Consensus. Groups that make decisions by consensus must, by design, collaborate. Groups that make decisions by majority-rule can effectively avoid collaboration. They are inherently competitive and still part of a command-and-control hierarchy in which some members are more equal than others.

My journey to Collaboration and Consensus began with Scott Peck’s groundbreaking book The Different Drum. “In and through community lies the salvation of the world,” Peck wrote in 1988. “For the human race today stands at the brink of self-annihilation.”

I soon became involved in community-building experiments guided by Peck’s Foundation for Community Encouragement. I also joined the coordinating committee for the fledgling Green Party of California. I was captivated by the idea of a global political force making decisions by Consensus rather than Majority-Rule.

In 1990, a handful of Greens formed The Consensus Institute, dedicated to advancing the understanding and use of Consensus-based decision-making in the Green Party and in the greater society. In 1994, I was invited by a book publisher to codify what I’d learned into an alternative to Robert’s Rules of Order – so Rules for Reaching Consensus was born and has since sold more than 15,000 copies.

The model has been used, cited and recommended by numerous groups in the public, private and nonprofit sectors, including the Environmental Protection Agency, state of Idaho, University of Michigan, Pacific Rivers Council and International Paper.

Over the past 20 years, I continued to explore community-building methods, rules and tools for reaching consensus, cooperative strategic planning and building collaborative infrastructure. I’ve had the chance to consult many organizations trying to reach consensus, from the Catholic Diocese of Los Angeles to the Pikes Peak American Red Cross to the Botswana Ministry of Education.

Got Collaboration? Let’s work together on making it happen in your organization!

Permaculture design (begins and) ends with ‘us’

Principles-Holmgren1by Trudy Thomas

The last weekend of Pikes Peak Permaculture’s 2015 Permaculture Design Certification class was exciting and nerve wracking – especially for me.

While teams presented their designs to the whole class, to Pikes Peak Permaculture Guild members and to site representatives, I paced the hall outside.

Finally Karen, one of my fellow students, took me by the shoulders, looked me straight in the eyes and said, “Don’t worry, it’s us!”

It was the best thing anyone could have said and a statement that summed up what this course meant to its participants. By the end, we no longer were individuals taking a class; we were “us.”

UsWe had spent a weekend a month together for eight months. We had held hands in a circle, sang sweet, silly songs and had cooked and eaten meals together.

During the fifth weekend we broke up into teams, two teams for each of three sites. During the next three months, teams had to figure out how to work together. We met outside of class in homes and restaurants and it didn’t matter if our brains reasoned the same way or not, we had to make it work. And for the most part, it did.

As the months passed, the world started looking strange. Houses weren’t built correctly. They captured little of the sun’s energy. Why were they constructed with toxic materials and without regard for energy efficiency? Suddenly, yards seemed naked without food growing everywhere. And good grief, why were there no greenhouses? Watching water run unchecked into the storm drain now seemed criminal. Seeds, leaves and animal waste became valued beyond gold. Had we lost our minds?

No. We had come to our senses.

We had grown less satisfied with the world we live in because the paradigm had shifted.

Then the day came to present our designs and, even though I was proud of my contribution, I wasn’t sure I could communicate coherently. I bumbled through it, forgetting words, standing in front of my drawing and running out of time, but I received my certificate along with 23 others.

In the last moments of that last day, we sat in a circle and talked about what was next for each of us. Tears flowed; some were sad, some frustrated, some happy.  It was Okay, though, because it was us.

And for me, it spoke of something even deeper. For me, the tears expressed how Permaculture turns the world upside down, where your feet are firmly planted in the soil, bringing you back to a place that feels right, a place that feels like home.