Structure Proposal for Efficient, Noncoercive Decision-making by Consensus
BACKGROUND: The S_____ Project's staff seems committed to the principles of equality in decision-making power and authority, to a strong enough degree that no one has been able to establish a "chain of command" or vertical hierarchy of accountability. In lieu of such a structure, the staff make all decisions by consensus. The staff meetings as a result have long since become six-hour exhausting struggles to get everyone to accept this or that point of view. Often, when one person is absent, that person will not regard as valid any decision which was reached in his or her absence. Similarly, an issue that many thought had been finally resolved is often raised anew because there is no longer consensus as to whether or not consensus was reached. Many people have expressed strong wishes for a more structured and orderly system for making decisions and addressing issues within the agency, but prior to the writing of this proposal, no one had outlined any procedure for efficient decision-making that did not depend on putting someone in charge of the whole mess and then designating others to be in charge of various matters (with a one-time consensus on who should be in charge of what). But this idea, or variations on it, have never been well received, and the chaos goes on
GENERALITIES
1. Firstly, under the structured egalitarian model, it is understood by everyone that decisions and policies are not yes-no or on-off like a light bulb, but rather come in increments of tentativeness and permanence. There is a specific structure for creating each of several increments of decision, so that a new idea can be adopted tentatively and implemented while still being open to constant evaluation and reappraisal and process. Ideas that demonstrate practicality and widespread acceptance are gradually ratified into more permanent categories via a similarly specific structure. The adoption of the structures will greatly reduce misunderstandings between people as to the degree of agency commitment to an idea that some may not feel any too sure about.
2. The corollary to the ability to have tentative decisions as described above is the agency-wide understanding that consensus does not mean enslavement of each individual to the approval of all of the others. An individual who really wants to do something proposes agency acceptance of an idea on a tentative level. Acceptance of the okayness of giving an idea a trial run should be denied only for a damn good reason. At the other end, adoption of an idea as permanent agency policy would occur only with complete consensual no-reservations ratification by all involved personnel. The most tentative and temporary levels of approval of ideas that directly affect only a few people or only a specific branch of the agency (e.g., an idea for changing an outreach procedure of the case management team at C_____'s) could be granted without consulting all agency personnel -- and the rest of the agency would be involved later with the opportunity to "second-guess" it as a good or not-so-good idea when it is brought up at the next higher level of decision-making. The idea of trusting each other and each other's judgment is therefore tied to the idea that tentative decisions are temporary, and that no one will be left out of decisions that are proposed for more long-term implementation.
3. When an idea or a suggestion is tossed out for processing by the rest of the agency, there is a structured form in which it is presented, consisting of a quick overview of the understanding of what problem the suggestion or idea is designed to address, an overview of which values are involved in deciding to address that problem, and why the idea or suggestion is thought to be practical as a method of addressing it.
In criticizing an idea or suggestion, other agency personnel will address each of their criticisms or questions to an aspect of the idea -- disagreement with the understanding of the problem, disagreement with the priority given to the values in contrast with other values which may be "stepped on" by the idea, disagreement with the practicality of the proposed suggestion in terms of whether it would work or not or in terms of whether it would have dangerous side-effects on the agency or not. The format of the criticisms would therefore also be structured in a formal sense.
Lest all of this formality give you the creeps, there would always be a category of "Other" comments or criticisms after the roster of formal categories have been gone through.
SPECIFICS
These are examples of specific structures we could use. If you like the general idea, we could refine these specifics. The important part is to have some kind of specific decision-making and communicating structure to make consensus processing streamlined and effective.
Decisions, ad hoc level (temporary, tentative, minor scope)
Any subgroup of S_____ Project, such as the CM's who go to such-and-such a home on a certain day, can consent as a group to implement the ideas of one or more members of that subgroup as if agency consensus existed, provided that, at the next staff meeting, the ideas and rationale behind them are brought up, the results described, and the decision is ratified up to the next level.
There is a level of decision below this one, the informal simple stuff that every worker naturally assumes her or himself to have the judgment to decide without consultation -- should I tell D_____ that the mopped floor is fine & he can quit even though it isn't? When you aren't sure whether or not to decide informally and alone, but the ad hoc level described here seems right, use it. When the formality described here seems ridiculous, don't. Trust your judgment.
Decisions, tentative trial level (okayed, still in process)
The S_____ Project staff, when presented with a staff member's idea and his or her request for an okay (to go ahead and implement it to try it out & explore it in practice as well as in theoretical discussion), either grants that okay or denies it.
Any single staff member has the authority to deny such an okay, but given the tentativeness of that okay, should put the proverbial foot down only for a good reason. The presumption should be "okay until demonstrated otherwise" (sort of like innocent until proven guilty). There should be a solid practical reason or a permanent level agency policy at the theoretical level, one or the other, for saying no way.
A decision at this level is automatically on the agenda for further processing and review at the next staff meeting.
Ad hoc decisions, the preceding level, can be described and okayed to this level by staff. This would usually be part and parcel of each staff member's overview of what happened with you and you and you this week, which keeps us in touch with each other's activities and builds agency continuity.
Decisions at this level are simple voice-vote. Reversals of such decisions will have the same status.
Decisions, Programmatic Trial level (okayed, can be opened for process at request, periodic review)
Ideas which are generally accepted as non-problematic after a tentative period (or bypassing tentative period if we are all comfortable with doing so) are made agency policy and need not be reviewed at every meeting. A person seeking to promote the acceptance of such a policy decision would make a motion at a regular staff meeting, and all staff members would be informed between that meeting and the next that such a policy motion would be under consideration at the next meeting. If someone has a problem with such a policy, that person can ask to have this subject placed on the agenda and discussion will ensue. If problem is not resolved, a person with major problems with such a decision can move, at such a meeting, for a reversal of such a policy, but the decision to reverse cannot be made at that meeting. Instead, the information that such a reversal has been proposed will be made available to all staff, present and absent, who will arrive at the next meeting prepared to discuss the issue.
Once every so often, e.g., every six weeks, a periodic review of such decisions should be placed on the agenda, at which point motions to make decision an Ongoing Policy level decision will be entertained.
The procedure for promotion to the next level, like the procedure for reversal, shall involve notification of all staff one meeting-interval in advance.
Decision, Ongoing Policy level (agency policy for the time being)
Here is a description of the procedure for making or reversing a decision at this semi -permanent level.
Someone or several someones would make a motion at a staff meeting that at the meeting following, there would be placed on the agenda the first of a minumum of three discussions of the merits of the decision versus the merits of criticisms of the decision (as outlined in the section on formal commentary).
The Information that such discussions have been proposed would go out to all agency staff one meeting-interval in advance of the first discussion.
The results of such a series of three discussions will be one of the following options as determined by 2/3 preference of staff. If 2/3 of staff cannot agree, insufficient consensus is indicated and by default option C, continuation of discussion, is indicated.
Option A: leave or promote decision to ongoing policy level; table discussion for a minimum of six weeks
Option B: demote decision to Programmatic Trial level and within that format consider reversal.
Option C: continue discussion without alteration of decision level.
Decision, permanent policy level (contractual or equivalent)
Primarily describes "decisions" such as the decision to operate from an advocacy-and-empowerment perspective, or the "decision" to receive funds from OMH. Other ideas or concepts or definitions of procedures could be concretized as the binding equivalent of this by a process that would create agency by-laws, if we desire it.
If we don't, the recognition of this level as a level that exists allows us to identify the source of other decisions that we make as stemming from these, and to discuss, however briefly and theoretically, what would have to change in order for us to seriously consider ideas or proposals which would, in essence, conflict with the bedrock of the agency and its identity.
At the same time, the implication of even listing such things as decision which were made on a level does imply their reversability, however farfetched, which means that we are not prevented from considering any line of thought if sufficient cause is indicated.
The method of promoting a decision to this level, or of demoting an idea from this level, would probably have to take the form of creating a meeting time in our schedules for ongoing discussion of the merits of doing so; although a single meeting for the purpose of deciding whether or not to pretend, for the sake of opening dialogue and getting feelings out, that such decisions were more reversible than they actually are, could also be considered.
Formal Procedures for Proposing, Suggesting, Etc.
1. First, the person or persons presenting the agency with new ideas for consideration describes the rationale for the idea. What situation or problem is addressed by the idea? (Give the theoretical description of causes and context and so on when idea is being proposed for decisions as the more binding level; less formality is necessary when decisions under consideration are to be at more tentative levels).
2. Second, those presenting ideas will try to anticipate conflicting perspectives that come from values, and priorities given to conflicting values, that the idea might have to be argued against. How have these possible conflicts already been considered? Which of them have been resolved with no "blood shed" so that they don't conflict after all? Which of them are being proposed, by those presenting the ideas, as necessary casualties of more important values and priorities?
3. Third, those presenting the ideas will describe how the idea addresses the situation or problem better than it is currently being addressed. How will the implementation look? Or if the idea being presented isn't "fleshed out" to that point yet, and those presenting the ideas are seeking input as to how to implement, make this plain at this point. Likewise, if those presenting an idea do have specific and well-developed concepts of how the implementation of the idea would look, make that apparent. If those presenting an idea have some specific ideas, they may be committed to them or they may be very open to alternate suggestions. Make this apparent if strong feelings about specifics are involved. Strong feelings have validity, at least to an extent, and need not be disguised. Another aspect of this "specifics" part of an idea presentation should be a mention of the "therefore we have to's", the nuts and bolts of practical implementation decisions that would arise if the overall idea were approved -- if these things have been thought out. Finally, if alternative routes towards implementation have already been considered and rejected in favor of the one or ones that the idea-presenters are the most fond of, it is useful at this point to give an overview of that process of consideration.
IN UPPER-LEVEL, MORE PERMANENT & SERIOUS DECISION PROPOSALS, THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE PRESENTED AS THE PRESENTER DESIRES, with regards to whether or not questions should or should not be brought up as they occur. The formal process of waiting, and responding with criticism formalized as follows, is recommended for most efficient processing under most circumstances.
Formal Procedures for Criticizing an Idea or Proposal
One at a time, everyone has a chance to address the idea from the first category of criticism; then, one at a time, everyone has a chance to address the idea from the next category of criticism. And so on...
1. First, criticisms of the operant problem definition. Is that really how things are? Is it really a problem if that is how things are?
2. Second, criticisms of the priorities given to operant values at the expense of other values. Okay, if it is indeed a problem, as described, will addressing it as described not conflict with such and such other, perhaps more important, operant values? [do not include values pertaining to the continued survival of the agency at this point; that would be a practical. see below]
3. Third, criticisms of the practicality of the proposed solution. If we did what has been suggested, would it really address the problem described? Can we, in fact, do what has been suggested? If we do indeed do it, will it result in serious agency problems that threaten the survival or viability of the agency? Will it result in serious employee problems that endanger our professional careers? And so on.
4. Other criticisms of the proposed solution which do not seem to fit In any of the above categories.
NOTE: the word "criticism" is used here in the broader sense of affirmative as well as negative criticism.
FINALLY...
At structured intervals, staff meetings should include non-specific, wide open go arounds, in which each person in turn says whatever is on her or his mind for a certain number of uninterrupted minutes, then the next person, etc. This increases the flexibility and completeness of our communication.
Also, as briefly mentioned before, it would be good to have a quick "how was your week? what happened with you since last meeting?" go around at the beginning of each meeting. Sort of our own "Member News".