REVISED Chapter 6, Creating a Life Together (Diana Leafe Christian)
Power, Governance, and Decision-Making
July 13, 2015 – Approximately 9,100 words
Most intentional communities, other than those led by a single spiritual teacher or leader, intend
that power be shared equally among members. But certain members may still have considerably
more power than others. Much of the conflict in a core group or community occurs over issues of
unequal distribution of power.
Sometimes the power imbalance is caused by one or more people dominating meetings
and committees These folks might have a dominating communication style – interrupting, talking
loudly, “talking over” others, or speaking with such intensity and certainty that no one can
oppose them. This means they end up having a lot of the power in the group.
Or maybe they have fine communication skills but unintentionally dominate meetings and
committees because they have more information about issues than others do. These people
arrive with a briefcase, clipboard, pocket calculator, and a sheaf of documents about how it’s
done. Who could disagree?
Still others are fine communicators and don’t know any more than anyone else, but
they’ve got such energy and force in their personality that people instinctively look to them for
leadership. Without meaning to, they’ve got a lot of power in the group. Some appreciate them;
others resent them.
Sometimes the power imbalance involves someone being more influential than others
because of his or her role in the community. In some communities one person, often a founder,
seems to have considerably more influence over decisions than others, even if the community
uses democratic governance and decision-making. The power person might have established the
original vision for the community, put up all or most of the money, and/or lived there the longest.
Other community members habitually defer to his or her opinion, even if the group officially
believes everyone has equal say.
Power — The Ability to Influence
People who have power and privilege in a group usually aren’t aware of it. They usually exercise
it innocently and don’t notice that it’s not reciprocal.
Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad in The Guru Papers define “power” as the ability of a person
or system to influence other persons or systems — and it’s neither good nor bad. They
distinguish between plain and simple “power” and “the authoritarian use of power.” (Italics
mine.) When people have authoritarian power, they enforce or perpetuate their power by
punishing or ignoring those who disagree with them. This distinction helped me see that the
authoritarian use of power is something most of us want to avoid, yet “power” — our ability to
influence each other — is not only not negative, but something which, if we encourage it equally
in our group, can benefit all of us.
I see a community’s governance structure and its decision making method as the main
power-point in a community — what they make decisions about, who makes them, and how they
share information about what they’re doing (governance) and how they make decisions (decision-
making). Power imbalances can be greatly reduced by using fair, participatory governance and
decision-making methods that spread power equally and offer checks and balances against power
abuses. (Everyone having good communication skills certainly helps too.) Not having a fair,
participatory governance and decision-making method early in your group will almost certainly
generate conflict over power imbalances at some point. I consider this another kind of structural
conflict, because putting fair, participatory governance and decision-making in place at the
beginning is a “structure” which can help protect against it.
(Of course, simply having a fair decision-making method doesn’t address power
imbalances triggered by dominating, intimidating, or manipulative behaviors outside of meetings,
taking unilateral actions that affect the community without first checking with others or breaking
community agreements. These issues will be addressed in Chapters 17 and 18.)
If a community chooses a single person or a committee to participate in community
governance and make certain decisions, they’ve got focused power — which is good for decisions
which must be made quickly or which require special expertise. (A)
Community Governance — Spreading Power Widely
In communities, as well as in core groups, everyone needn’t participate in every aspect of
governance and decide everything — it’s too unwieldy. So how does a group govern itself and
manage decisions so that power is balanced and everyone has input into decisions, yet meetings
don’t take too long and people aren’t driven crazy with details?
Let’s first consider governance structures that spread power widely.
Many “ten percent” communities profiled in this book govern themselves with whole-
group-meetings and a series of smaller committees, like Earthaven Ecovillage in North Carolina.
At Earthaven, whole-community meetings are held on Sunday afternoons twice a month. In these
meetings significant and wide-ranging community and policy issues are decided upon. Day-to-day
work is accomplished by smaller committees overseeing finance, physical infrastructure,
membership issues, and so on. Committees are set up by the whole-community meetings and
report to it. The committees decide on issues and distribute a record of their minutes and all
decisions to members by email and by posting them publicly. After posting, the community has
three weeks in which to offer concerns regarding a decision. In that event, the proposal goes
back to the discussion stage for further refinement and revision, which is also posted for three
weeks for everyone’s OK. If a committee decision is not challenged in the three-week period, it
stands. This way, every community member who reads the committee minutes can keep track of
each committee’s activity, and oversee all community decisions. Additionally, committees may
bring proposals about more significant issues to whole-community meetings for discussion and
decision by the group.
Dancing Rabbit in Missouri uses a representational governance method they call “Village
Council.” Seven people are elected by all Dancing Rabbit members for staggered terms of two
years each. These seven representatives make decisions that were formerly made by their whole-
community meetings, including: creating and dissolving committees and approving committee
members, approving and modifying job descriptions for specific community roles and paid staff,
approving the group’s annual goals and priorities, approving the budgets for Dancing Rabbit’s two
legal entities, making committee-level decisions when requested to by one of their many
committees, and any other responsibilities not already covered by a committee that may be
worthy of Village Council attention. They also still hold whole-community meetings sometimes.
Members of the Village Council are elected by the whole community. Candidates for the
Village Council must know how to consider what’s best for the community as a whole; understand
the community’s mission; have the time; are willing to participate in conflict resolution if needed;
are a member in good standing (paid up on dues and fees and up-to-date with labor
requirements); and preferably have the use of a computer and has been trained in the
community’s decision-making method (consensus). At least some nominees for this role need
good verbal, written, and/or financial skills.
Everyone receives a ballot with the names of every community member listed
alphabetically. Each person uses a four-point numerical evaluation (+2, +1, 0, -1) to indicate
how they believe each person might serve as a Village Council member. Their choices are: +2
(This person would be good in this role); +1 (I feel OK about this person in this role); 0 (I have
no opinion about this person re this role); and -1 (I don’t think this person would be good in this
role). The 20 people with the highest number of points are eligible to be nominated for the Village
Council on a slate of candidates. In a whole-community meeting people use consensus to choose
from between one to five of what seem like the best slates of nominees. All members then vote
for the slate of nominees they want, using a computer-based instant runoff system. The slate
with the most number of votes becomes the new Village Council. In their first year of the Village
Council system they elected all seven members; they now choose three- or four-member slates
of nominees because of their staggered two-year terms.
Dancing Rabbit has many committees, all of which essentially report to the Village Council.
The Oversight committee provides the executive function of staffing committees and making sure
they do their jobs. Committees have the power to propose policies in their area of responsibility,
and implement policies. The power to make decisions, however, depends on their “power level”:
(1) The power to make proposals (2) “Review power” — a two-week period in which all
community members review their decision and can express concerns. At the end of two weeks
any concerns are addressed by the committee changing the decision; if there are no concerns,
the decision passes and is implemented. (3) “Recall” power — The same as “Review power” but
the committee can implement the decision immediately. If concerns are expressed in the two-
week period the committee modifies the decision. (4) “Final decision” power — the committee
can make and approve a proposal immediately, without a review period. The Village Council and
whole-community meetings have “Final decision” power.
Another governance structure occurs in Sociocracy, a governance structure and decision-
making method developed in The Netherlands in the 1970s, described below.
Decision-Making Methods – Consensus-with-Unanimity
In their efforts to spread power widely, most communities use consensus decision-making.
Many use a classic form of consensus, which I call “consensus-with-unanimity” — meaning it
takes 100 percent of the people in the meeting except those standing aside to pass a proposal.
And anyone can block a proposal for any reason, and there’s no recourse if someone blocks.
Unfortunately using consensus-with-unanimity often triggers negative consequences in
communities, such as conflict and demoralization, so increasing numbers of communities now use
modifications of consensus-with-unanimity.
I no longer recommend consensus-with-unanimity for these reasons. If a community
wants to use consensus, I now recommend the modification called the “N St. Consensus Method,”
which I’ll describe later in the chapter. I also recommend Sociocracy, which is not a modification
of consensus, but, as noted above, is a separate governance structure and decision-making
method, also briefly described later in the chapter.
Because consensus-with-unanimity is the basic foundational method for the consensus
modifications we’ll examine later, we’ll begin with a brief description of how it works. Then I’ll
explain why I now believe most consensus methods, including some of the newer consensus
modifications, unfortunately can contribute to conflict in communities, and what we can do about
it.
Classic consensus-with-unanimity is a group decision-making process in which all present
must agree before action is taken. It is based on the belief that everyone has a piece of the
truth. The intention is that each person in a meeting is given the time and space to speak their
truth, and is listened to with respect. If done correctly, this method can help to spread power
throughout the whole group and until recently was chosen most often by many community
founders.
In general it consensus-with-unanimity (which I’ll refer to as just “consensus” in this
section) works like this: Members don’t vote Yes or No on motions. Rather, proposals are
introduced, discussed, and eventually decided upon. Proposals don’t necessarily remain as they
were introduced, but are improved or modified to meet people’s concerns as necessary. When it’s
time to decide, people either give consent to the proposal, stand aside from it, or block it.
Giving consent doesn’t necessarily mean loving every aspect of the final version of the
proposal, but being able to live with it and support it.
Standing aside is an act of what’s sometimes called “principled non-participation,” in which
someone can’t personally support the proposal, but doesn’t want to stop the rest of the group
from adopting it. People who stand aside are noted in the minutes, and, depending on the
group’s agreements, may not have to help implement it (but they are still subject to it).
Blocking the proposal stops it from being adopted, at least for the time being. It is not
supposed to be used for personal reasons, or because someone doesn’t like how the decision may
affect them personally. “Blocking is a serious matter,” writes consensus teacher Bea Briggs, “to
be done only when one truly believes that the pending proposal, if adopted, would violate the
morals, ethics, or safety of the whole group.” Caroline Estes, another well-known consensus
teacher, often says that people who understand consensus well will only block a proposal three or
four times in their lifetime. (Caroline further notes that people who often block proposals are
probably operating on a different set of values than other community members and may be in
the wrong group.)
A proposal is passed when everyone in the meeting gives consent, even if one or more
people stand aside. It is not passed if at least one person blocks it.
When a group uses consensus to make a decision, they can only change that decision by
passing a new proposal to change the first proposal.
A consensus meeting is not “run” by a chairperson, but served by agenda planners and a
facilitator. Before each meeting, the agenda planners create an agenda which will help the group
address relevant topics in a certain order and within certain time frames for a well-paced,
effective meeting. The facilitator’s job is to consider the needs of the group as a whole, create an
atmosphere of trust and safety, help those who want to do so to participate in the discussion
(and not let anyone dominate), help the group stick to its agenda contract, keep the group
focused and on task, and assess how well the group is agreeing, before testing for consensus.
“Testing for consensus” means the facilitator asks, in turn, who will stand aside or block. If no
one blocks, the proposal passes.
Consensus is essentially a conservative approach to decision making — if everyone in your
group cannot support the proposal, you don’t adopt the proposal, or you change the proposal. In
the consensus process one person can stop a group from moving forward on a proposal by
blocking it. Many consensus trainers say this is rare in a well-trained group, however, I have
found that in some communities one or more people repeatedly block proposals. In any case,
people objecting to a proposal ideally should openly voice their concerns about a proposal openly
from the beginning, and the group attempts to modify and refine the proposal to meet those
concerns. If, after much discussion, there isn’t much support for the modified proposal, the
facilitator doesn’t call for a decision, but lays aside the proposal for a future meeting, or calls for
a committee to suggest new solutions at a later meeting.
. Consensus trainers often compare consensus favorably with majority-rule voting. In
majority-rule voting a proposal stays the same as it was originally introduced (it’s not modified),
and it takes at least 51% Yes votes to pass it. However, in controversial issues, where the vote
may be split 51-49 percent, half the group has all the power, and the other half has none. [From
the book, pg. 57] This means that up to half the people can be unhappy with a decision, which
often generates foot-dragging and other forms of unconscious sabotage when it comes to
implementing the proposal.. Consensus trainers point out it may take longer to make decisions
using consensus than it does when using majority-rule voting, especially at first. However,
implementing a proposal once it’s agreed upon usually takes far less time than in majority-rule
voting. Consensus generates an entirely different dynamic among meeting participants than
majority-rule voting. With the latter, competing factions usually try to win converts to their
position by criticizing the other position and creating an “us vs. them” atmosphere. But its
trainers say that consensus creates an incentive for supporters of a proposal to seek out those
who disagree with them and really try to understand their objections — and to reform the
proposal to incorporate the other members’ concerns. Conflicts and differences arise using
consensus as often as they do when using other forms of decision making. But many consensus
trainers believe that in consensus ideally conflicts are seen as a catalyst to creating more
innovative solutions and crafting an agreement out of all the different concerns that people raise.
Ideally, the consensus facilitator draws out the ideas and concerns of each member and
doesn’t let the more articulate or energetic members dominate. In contrast, majority-rule voting
usually rewards the most aggressive members but disempowers the group as a whole.
Consensus trainers often claim that, in contrast to majority-rule voting, when done well,
consensus can transform meetings from overlong, frustrating, draining sessions that go nowhere
and elicit people’s worst behaviors, to spirited, stimulating events where everyone’s ideas are
valued and the group comes up with surprisingly creative and workable solutions.
What Can Go Wrong
However, in my years of consulting with communities in conflict and participating in
meetings of my own community, I’ve seen consensus-with-unanimity and some modifications
also create overlong, frustrating, draining sessions that go nowhere and elicit people’s worst
behaviors. The advocates of this form of consensus often claim that because everyone’s
agreement is required to pass a proposal, this naturally results in trust, harmony, and
connection. But I have seen many communities using consensus-with-unanimity (or some of its
modifications) that get just the opposite.
Consider the 15-year-old community that still doesn’t have a pet policy because a member
with several dogs blocks any proposal to create a temporary committee to even draft a pet
policy. Or the 20-year-old group which still has no community building after several members
blocked a proposal to build one because of their abhorrence of debt — even though the
community borrowed money to buy its property in the first place. Or the community that has no
labor requirement because one member blocks every proposal to create a labor policy, believing
that if it’s a real community everyone would work for the community voluntarily.
These communities not only have no pet policy, community building, or labor policy, they
also have no consistent experience of trust and connection, as this is destroyed regularly when a
few fellow community members stop what everyone else wants.
Threatening to Block and “Premature Proposal Death”
And sometimes, even if no one has ever blocked, conflict and discouragement still occurs
because the possibility of blocking exists — since everyone knows anyone could block a proposal
if they wanted to.
This happens when someone threatens to block before a proposal has been presented in a
meeting. This can happen directly — “I’ll never support that!” It can also happen as an
implication, such as when someone shows disapproval or disdain for an upcoming proposal
through facial expression, tone of voice, or body language. This can even happen when someone
is just voicing an idea that hasn’t even become a proposal yet.
When either of these occurs — directly threatening to block a proposal or idea, or an
implication that someone might do so — the community suffers. People lose heart for their new
ideas and drop them. Community members don’t get to illuminate the issues in a meeting
through discussion. An idea that could have benefitted the community or shed light on an
important issue is abandoned before it’s ever considered — dying before it was born.
Reasons People Block Inappropriately
I believe this happens because people often misunderstand and mis-use the blocking
privilege. It is certainly appropriate, and desirable, to block if a proposal clearly violates the
community’s values, underlying principles, or mission, and the person can clearly show why. Or
to block if implementing a proposal would harm the community in some real, demonstrable way,
and the person(s) can clearly show why.
Tim Hartnett, author of Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making (New Society Publishers,
2010), is the first consensus trainer I know of to say publicly that the benefits of consensus-with-
unanimity are often outweighed by its negative consequences. He observes, and I have seen
also, at least three reasons people block inappropriately:
(1) The blocking person interprets the community’s stated mission or purpose differently
than other community members. Some members in one community, for example believed its
purpose was to create a rural agrarian village and grow and raise much of its own organic food.
Other members believed their community purpose was to protect the Earth from human impact,
and so blocked most proposals about farming and agriculture. Still others knew theirs was
primarily a spiritual community devoted to processing conflict and emotions in meetings.
(2) A proposal violates a member’s personal values rather than the community’s agreed-
upon shared values. In this same community people have blocked proposals because of a
personal distaste for the insurance industry, a devotion to ecofeminism, or a contempt for small
cottage industries offering onsite jobs for members.
(3) The blocker has a perhaps subconscious wish for attention — even negative attention
— or to otherwise express a painful but suppressed emotional issue.
People can also block inappropriately because they need more time to consider the
proposal, or because a proposal seems too confusing to understand what it actually means. In
these cases, rather than blocking, the person simply needs ask for more time to consider the
proposal, or request that it be revised for clarity.
For whatever reason, when people block proposals inappropriately, it demoralizes the
group.
Having “Complete Power Over the Group”
“Requiring unanimity,” Tim Hartnett writes, “is usually intended to ensure widespread
agreement. When unanimity is blocked by a small number of people, however, the group actually
experiences widespread disagreement (which has) toxic effects on the group.”
He observes that no matter how well and accurately a group practices consensus-with-
unanimity, doing so does not ensure unanimous approval of the final, modified proposal. The
blocking principle, he says, is often considered a way to equally share power in a group, but he
notes that giving people equal power to control the group’s ability to make a decision can actually
create inequality. “It necessitates that all group members have the ethics and maturity to use
this power responsibly,” he writes. “This may not be a realistic expectation.”
He advocates that true equality may be better secured “by a system that ensures that no
group member ever has the power to individually control the group.” (Italics mine.)
Caroline Estes also cautions that consensus “allows each person complete power over the
group.” When someone blocks, she adds, “they should also examine themselves closely to assure
that they are not withholding consensus out of self-interest, bias, vengeance, or any other such
feeling.” (Communities Directory, Fellowship for Intentional Community, 1991.)
You can see the effects of individual power over the group when committee members
have worked long, hard hours on a proposal, then spent time in a series of whole-group meetings
to modify and improve it, and most community members look forward to approving and
implementing it. When the proposal is blocked by one or two people, most members don’t feel
harmony, trust, or connection. They’re more likely to feel devastated. And when this kind of
blocking happens often, it can result in distrust, low morale. and dwindling meeting attendance.
Many communities chose consensus-with-unanimity because — wanting to spread power
widely — they value fairness, mutual respect, trust, compassion, and equality.
But fairness, mutual respect, trust, compassion, and equality are often not what they get.
Political activists and people in the communities movement have come up with a name for what
they get — “Tyranny of the Minority.”
“Tyranny of the Minority”
Tim Hartnett points out more consequences of “Tyranny of the Minority.” I’ve seen each of
these dynamics too.
* People able to endure more conflict may prevail, creating “decision by endurance.”
Sometimes community members who can endure high levels of conflict have a greater chance of
prevailing over those who can’t bear conflict for long. When this happens, it is sometimes the
ability to tolerate conflict — rather than the ability to seek deeper understanding and to
collaborate — that determines whether or not a proposal is passed. “More obstinate participants
may more frequently get their way,” he says.
* Disproportionate power to whoever supports the status quo. If most people in a
community support a proposal to change one or more long-standing policies, they cannot do so
until they convince everyone in the group. If one or two people don’t support the proposal, no
matter that everyone else may want it, the original policies will remain. This gives exceptional
power to anyone who doesn’t want the community to change.
* The community may stagnate, unable to evolve. For this reason there may be little
chance of revising outdated agreements. Thus whatever the group put in place in its early days
— the status quo — may remain in effect for years beyond its actual effectiveness for the group.
* Power struggles may drive out some of the group’s most responsible, effective
members. When people with high levels of initiative and leadership make proposals in a
community they often expect and require a timely response. If there are underlying values
differences in the community, or people block for personal reasons or as subconscious bids for
attention, the high-initiative people tend to stop going to meetings. They don’t have the patience
to spend time processing other members’ anxieties or emotions. When this happens repeatedly
they are often too discouraged and frustrated to stay in the community, and so leave.
Usually it is the most responsible and effective members — the community’s natural
leaders — who leave first.
When Using Consensus Is Inappropriate . . .
Most community-based consensus trainers advise groups not to use consensus unless
they meet the specific requirements for it. In my experience, relatively few intentional
communities actually meet these requirements (or know they exist).
“(Consensus is) not appropriate for all situations,” cautions community-based consensus
trainer Tree Bressen on her website. It works best “for groups that have a shared purpose,
explicit values, some level of trust and openness to each other, and enough time to work with
material in depth,” she says. (www.treegroup.info)
Caroline Estes teaches that using consensus requires a community to have a shared
common purpose, equal access to power, and training in how to use consensus properly.
Tim Hartnett is even more specific, noting that the smaller and more homogeneous the
group, the easier it is to reach agreement when using consensus-with-unanimity. “Participants
must trust each other and value their relationships highly,” he writes. They “must be trained to
participate responsibly . . . must put the best interests of the group before their own.” And, he
adds, to keep their relationships open, clear, and healthy they must a lot of time processing
emotions in the group. And . . . as we’ve seen, not everyone enjoys doing this.
“Granted, only a small proportion of groups have the necessary conditions to effectively
use . . . consensus,” write the authors of Building United Judgment (Fellowship for Intentional
Community, 1999). “Such groups are small, cohesive, and cooperative. . . . If attempted under
the wrong circumstances or without a good understanding of the technique,” the authors add,
“the consensus process can result in confusion, disruption, or unrest in a group.”
Using It Anyway
Why would a community use consensus-with-unanimity if they aren’t small, cohesive, and
cooperative or don’t have a shared purpose, explicit values, some level of trust and openness to
each other?
Or they don’t agree on what form of consensus they’re using and haven’t been trained in
how to use it, or some have been trained and others haven’t? (Only a handful of communities
I’ve seen require new incoming members to get adequate consensus training before they have
the right to block proposals).
Nevertheless — no matter how often consensus books and trainers have cautioned against
it — in recent decades many communities have chosen consensus-with-unanimity even though
they don’t qualify to use it. They chose it, apparently, because they weren’t aware of its
requirements. Or because they thought their only other choice was majority-rule voting, and the
claims for consensus-with-unanimity appealed to their aspirations for fairness, equality, and a
better world.
Or . . . because they weren’t aware of the more recent consensus modifications and other
new alternatives.
Consensus Modifications
Many consensus trainers no longer advocate consensus-with-unanimity and suggest newer
methods instead.1
[ Sabine, this is the footnote for the bottom of this page:
1Two older methods are consensus-minus one, in which it takes to people to block a proposal, and consensus-minus-two, in which it takes three people to block a proposal. However, I don’t recommend either of these because they can lead to many of the same problems that occur when using consensus-with-unanimity.]
1. Supermajority vote as a fallback if consensus cannot be reached at first. Consensus has
two parts. First is the process — an agenda and proposals, a meeting facilitator, the intention to
hear from everyone, and people asking clarifying questions, expressing concerns, and discussing,
modifying, and improving the proposal.
The second part of consensus, the decision rule, occurs when the proposal is decided. The
decision rule is the percentage of agreement needed to pass a proposal. “Supermajority” means
a percentage higher than 51%. The percentages used in supermajority voting typically range
from 90% to 65% and anything in-between.
A community can use supermajority voting as the next step after a proposal is blocked.
Many cohousing communities in North American have a supermajority voting fallback if they don’t
reach consensus.
2. Using a supermajority vote instead of testing for consensus. When it’s time to make the
decision the facilitator doesn’t ask if anyone will stand aside or block; instead the group simply
votes. (See “Earthaven’s Modifications,” pg. __.)
3. Blockers and proposal advocates co-create a new proposal. When it’s time to decide,
the group first tries for consensus. If there are one or more blocks, those who’ve blocked and one
or two people who support the proposal hold a series of solution-oriented meetings to create a
new proposal that addresses the same issues as the first proposal. They must do this within a
certain time period, such as two or three weeks or months. If they create a new proposal it
comes to the next meeting. If they don’t create a new proposal the original proposal comes back
to the next meeting for a supermajority vote. (See “The N St. Consensus Method,” below,
“Sieben Linden’s Modifications,” pg. _, and “Earthaven’s Modifications,” pg. __.)
4. Criteria for a Valid Block. The community has both an agreed-upon criteria for what
constitutes a valid block (sometimes called a “legitimate block” or a “principled block”) and a way
to test blocks against this criteria. (I don’t recommend this method for reasons noted below, but
describe it since it’s sometimes mentioned in consensus resources.)
Some consensus trainers suggest the following criteria for a valid block: (1) The proposal
could harm the community in a specific way, such as legally, financially, or in terms of its
physical safety or its reputation, and the blocking person can show why. (2) Or the proposal
violates the values or mission and purpose of the community, and the person can show why.
One way to test a block against this criteria is for the facilitator to go around the group
several times asking each person in turn whether or not they think the block meets the
community’s criteria for validity, and why. After two or three rounds of hearing everyone’s
opinions, they vote, with a supermajority decision rule of, say, 85%. In this case, if 85% or more
considered the block to be valid, it would be declared valid and the proposal wouldn’t pass. But if
84% or fewer people considered the block valid, that wouldn’t be enough for it to be valid. The
block would be declared invalid and the proposal would pass.
Some communities test a block by requiring the blocking person to convince at least one
other person in the meeting (other than their spouse or partner) that the block is valid. If at least
one other person is convinced, the block is declared valid and the proposal does not pass.
Another method for testing a block is to ask the community’s steering committee to
decide whether or not the block is valid, which they do in the next steering committee meeting.
Although testing for a block’s validity may seem reasonable (and Dancing Rabbit uses it
and likes it), I dislike this method because it can sometimes introduce more conflict. People can
argue about what does or doesn’t constitute harm to the community or how the proposal does or
does not violate its values or its mission and purpose.
For example, people with different levels of tolerance for risk will have completely different
ideas of what is meant by “harming the community.” Consensus trainer Tree Bressen suggests it
is legitimate to block a proposal if passing it would pose a grave danger to the community, but
not if it would only create risk. Especially cautious, risk-averse members could see a proposal as
“posing grave danger” whereas others could see the same proposal as merely offering an
acceptable risk, and vice-versa.
Confusion and conflict can also occur when trying to determine how a proposal might
violate a community’s values or its purpose and mission statement.
The idea to have criteria for a valid block was originally created for activist groups with a
single, specific, clearly defined mission, such as political or environmental activist groups. Let’s
say, for example, an anti-war/peace activist group committed to nonviolence was considering a
proposal to create a dramatic media event where they would throw chicken blood on politicians
who wanted a war. It would be reasonable — and necessary — for one or more people to block,
because this proposal clearly violates their value of nonviolence and mission as advocates of
peace.
But unlike activist organizations, intentional communities are complex, multi-faceted
organizations that provide many tangible and intangible benefits which fulfill many needs, and
thus the group will have many different purposes. These can include community members,
housing, roads, parking, a community building, shared ownership of land and equipment, a place
to live and express one’s values and enjoy a sense of community, a place to raise children and to
grow old safely, as well as a place with policies for finances, labor contributions, land use,
membership, promotions, conflict resolution, and of course governance and decision-making.
Rural communities are also places to grow and raise food and create cottage industries.
Communities with an educational mission are also places to offer tours, classes, and workshops.
There is so much room for interpretation of the values and purposes of entities as complex
and multi-dimensional as this that some community members could argue a proposal violates
their mission while others could equally argue it fulfills it. Especially if — as is often the case —
the community’s mission statement was so vague, idealistic, and theoretical that people could
project onto it anything they want, like the community where some thought they were supporting
agriculture, or stopping agriculture, or doing neither but processing emotions in meetings
instead!
I believe that trying to use criteria to assess a block’s validity in an intentional community
can be too murky to determine easily and the group can end end up with even more confusion,
frustration, and arguments than they might have had in the first place.
The N St. Consensus Method bypasses all this. It simply requires those who blocked a
proposal and some who supported it to cooperate enough to create a new proposal. Thus people
who’ve blocked get several opportunities to contribute to a solution, and if they don’t, the
community is not stopped but moves forward anyway.
The N St. Consensus Method — Becoming Part of the Solution
This modification — which I highly recommend if a group wants to use consensus — has
been successfully used by N Street Cohousing in Davis, California since the mid-1980s.
If one or a few people block a proposal, they are required to meet with one or two
proposal supporters in a series of solution-oriented meetings. However, if enough people block
that it becomes obvious that the proposal clearly doesn’t have enough support, it simply doesn’t
pass and there are no meetings between blockers and supporters.
The small groups can meet up to six times in an up to a three-month period. (They’re not
required to meet six times or to take three months — this is just their outside limit.) Their job is
to create a new proposal that addresses the same issues as the blocked proposal.
The person or persons who blocked are responsible for organizing the meetings.
If a new, mutually agreed-upon proposal is created, it is brought to the next meeting
where it’s considered like any new proposal.
But if the blockers and supporters cannot come up with a new proposal — or if the
meetings don’t happen — the original proposal comes back to the next meeting, where it can be
passed with a 67% supermajority vote.
This consensus method makes anyone who wants to block take more responsibility for the
effect of their actions on the group. “If you’ve blocked,” says Kevin Wolf, cofounder of N St.
Cohousing and originator of this method, “you’ve got to be part of the solution.”
When I visited N Street Cohousing several years ago, I asked various community
members how they liked this method. “We like it,” they said. “Our meetings run smoothly.” This
is true even though 75% of the community members are renters. Having renters with full
decision-making rights participate in community governance often triggers conflict. But not at N
St.
While this method could seem like a lot of work and bureaucracy, I believe it is effective
not only because it works well when implemented, but also just because it exists. The presence
of this agreement in the community serves as a deterrent to the kinds of frivolous, personal
blocking that can occur when using other methods of consensus.
“Someone blocked a proposal in one of our meetings recently,” an N Street member told
me. “We’d forgotten to tell her how we work with blocks. After we explained, she said, ‘Well, if I’d
known I had to do all this I wouldn’t have blocked!’ Then she rescinded her block.”
The N St. Consensus Method is effective, in my opinion, because it respects both those
who’ve blocked a proposal and those who supported it. It respects those who blocked because it
gives them up to six formal opportunities in meetings and up to three months of informal
opportunities around the community to share their views, mutually create a new proposal, or
persuade at least 33% of the other members why the proposal shouldn’t be passed. Yet it also
respects those who supported the proposal, because if no new proposal is created, the 67%
supermajority vote ensures that most community members will get the original proposal they
wanted anyway.
With the N St. Method, “Tyranny of the minority” is no longer possible.
Sociocracy – “Effective, Efficient, and Fun”
Sociocracy, which means “governance by peers or colleagues,” is an increasingly popular
governance and decision-making method based on the principles of transparency, equivalency,
and effectiveness. I recommend it because when a community uses Sociocracy correctly, its
governance and decision-making tends to become far more effective than when using any form
of consensus. “A visitor said she’d never seen a community meeting be so effective, efficient, and
fun!” —Hope Horton, Hart’s Mill Ecovillage, US
“In our first six months of using Sociocracy, we have more effective management and
better follow-up to our decisions, which no longer fall into a ‘black hole of exhaustion.’ We have a
clearer sense of responsibility about who does what, and so information flows better, which
creates greater transparency for members. We have a stronger cohesion — our meetings are
faster and lighter and have a rhythm that feels satisfying. And at the end of our last meeting, we
started dancing for joy.” —Anamaria Aristizabal, cofounder, Aldeafeliz Ecovillage, Colombia
Sociocracy is not a modification of consensus. It was designed in the 1970s by Gerard
Endenburg, a Dutch electrical engineer, inventor, and cybernetics expert so that his company,
Endenburg Elektrotechniek, could function more harmoniously. It is sometimes called “Dynamic
Governance” in the U.S.
This brief description is only an overview to give a sense of Sociocracy. To learn it well
enough to use it, I recommend a two- or three-day workshop with follow-up consultations, in
person or online.
Sociocracy has many parts, but in my opinion, the following seven parts are needed to
work together synergistically to provide checks and balances against potential abuses of power.
They are four meeting processes — proposal-forming, consent decision-making, selecting people
for roles/elections, and role-improvement feedback — as well as a governance structure of
“double-linked” circles, clear aims or objectives for each circle, and “plan/implement/evaluate”
feedback loops built into every proposal.
Here are some brief descriptions.
Double-linked circles. The governance structure consists of semi-autonomous, self-
organized circles (like committees), that help the community do its work tasks, both
administrative and in terms of physical labor. Each circle provides a specific, concrete function for
the community re its ongoing work tasks; for example, a Membership Circle, Finance Circle, Land
Use Circle, and so on. Most circles are relatively small, with perhaps four to eight members.
The General Circle creates the functional circles — determining the area of responsibility,
objectives, and budgets for each — and coordinates the work each functional circle. The General
Circle also provides longer-term planning for the whole community, very much like whole-
community business meetings. However, General Circles usually have fewer members, perhaps
eight to ten people. The community will probably also hold whole-community meetings several
times a year.
“Double links” are two people who are members of two different circles and convey
information between them.
This “double-linking” ensures a direct, two-way flow of information between the General
Circle and each functional circle, and helps all the various work areas of the community function
smoothly and synergistically in relation with one another and not work at cross-purposes.
Each functional can create more focused and specific functional circles if needed. For
example, a Promotions Circle could create separate Website and Newsletter circles to accomplish
these more specific promotions tasks. Again, there are double-links between these circles. These
smaller, more specific functional circles may have just a few members, and sometimes, only one
person. Each circle uses consent decision-making and the other three meeting processes noted
above.
Clear, specific objectives for each circle. Objectives are what the circle produces or
provides for the community. A Finance Circle, for example, could provide the services of paying
the community’s taxes and other annual fees like utility bills, insurance premiums, and so on,
and invoicing and collecting dues and fees from members. A Promotions Circle could inform and
inspire potential visitors, neighbors, and the general public about the community’s mission and
activities through its website, blog, online newsletter, brochures, tours for visitors, and so on.
Specific objectives are important because when circle members make proposals, consent
and object to proposals, and resolve objections to proposals it’s usually based on how the
proposal may or may not support their circle’s objectives.
[Note to Sabine – these are called “aims” in English and that’s what you see if you read about Sociocracy in English. But it seems French, Spanish, and Portuguese all translate to “objectif.” Maybe in German the English word “objective” translates better. Which is fine with me, because it pretty much means the same thing.]
Plan/implement/evaluate feedback loops. Engineers and inventors use feedback loops to
create and test their ideas. First is a design or plan. Then a prototype is made to try out the
design — the implementation. The prototype is measured and evaluated to learn how it works in
real-life circumstances — the evaluation.
Feedback loops are built into Sociocracy too, because the wording of every proposal
includes criteria for how it will be measured and evaluated for effectiveness after it is
implemented, and dates of upcoming meetings when these evaluations will occur. Criteria for
measuring proposals can include “how much” and “how many” questions, while criteria for
evaluation are more subjective, and might include questions such “Do we like it?” “Is it working
well?” “What do community members say about it?” and so on.
After each evaluation circle members can keep the implemented proposal as it is or
change it as needed or even dismantle it (if possible). So when circle members are creating or
considering a proposal, they know that, depending on the proposal, they may later be able to
keep it, change it, or throw it out. Thus no proposal or decision has to be perfect, but only “good
enough for now” and “safe enough to try.” This flexibility reduces the fear of making a mistake or
not creating an “ideal” proposal. This takes the pressure off people to “get it right,” so meetings
are often much more relaxed than when using consensus (since it is so difficult to change a
decision once it’s been agreed on, and as Tim Hartnett points out, there is disproportionate power
to those who support the status quo.
Consent decision-making. This meeting process includes going round the circle to each
person, called a “round,” with a round for consenting to or objecting to the proposal. This is
followed by resolving objections by modifying the proposal then conducting another consent
round and alternating these steps until there are no more objections — which means the circle
has consented to the latest modification of the proposal.
As noted above, the checks and balances of these seven parts prevent power abuses in
decision-making. When consent decision-making is practiced correctly, no one can stop the circle
from approving a proposal because it violates their own personal values or lifestyle choices.
Objections to proposals are desirable and indicate a need to modify the proposal before
continuing. There is no blocking, and certainly no “personal blocking,” “threatening to block,” or
frivolous blocks.
Each of the other three meeting processes are based on consent decision-making.
Proposal-forming. Circle members draft a proposal about an issue that relates to the
circle’s area of responsibility and specific objectives.
Selecting people for roles (elections). Circle members choose people for roles in the circle
based on the specific tasks and requirements for the role.
Role-improvement feedback. Circle members give feedback to other circle members
relative to the specific tasks and requirements of the role.
As noted above, Sociocracy is based on the values of equivalence, transparency, and
effectiveness. Equivalence — circle members have an equivalent voice in decisions in their circle.
Transparency — all policy decisions are known to everyone through the linked-circles structure
as well as from minutes of meetings. Effectiveness — when practiced properly, Sociocracy tends
to take less time and help people accomplish their goals more easily than the group may have
done before.
“We’ve made more decisions in the past two months than we have in the past two
years!” says Davis Hawkowl of his community, Pioneer Valley Cohousing in the US, after it
began using Sociocracy.
I have learned in teaching Sociocracy to intentional communities worldwide, that those
that adopt it, like Aldeafeliz in Colombia and Hart’s Mill in the US, tend to experience more
equivalence, transparency and effectiveness than when they used consensus, but only when
everyone learns Sociocracy, how to they use it correctly, and they use all or mostly all of its
seven parts. Sociocracy tends not to work when people only partially understand it, or some
understand it but others do not, or they use just a few parts, or group interprets aspects of
Sociocracy through a lens of consensus and creates an awkward hybrid that doesn’t solve the
problems of consensus-with-unanimity and creates new ones.
Here’s what I suggest if you’re choosing governance and decision-making methods for
your group.
1. For a governance structure, use whole-community meetings and smaller committees if
your group is small, or something like Dancing Rabbit’s representational Village Council method if
you’re larger.
2. For decision-making, use the N St. Consensus Method or a variation of it, if you want to
use consensus.
3. And if you have access to a Sociocracy workshop and ongoing training, in person or
online, use Sociocracy for both governance and decision-making.
In Part Two we’ll look at some of the technical tips and tools for growing a community —
from making agreements and setting up legal entities to finding, financing and developing your
community property — and how you’ll raise enough money internally to pay property loans and
operating expenses.
Sidebar 1
Learning the Basics of the Consensus Process
To use any of the consensus modifications described in this chapter, including the N St.
Method, it’s necessary to first understand how to use the basic consensus process, as well as how
to test for consensus, regardless of which decision rule the group chooses. As with Sociocracy,
one can’t just read about consensus decision-making and use it; training is necessary, and ideally
with follow-up consultations if needed. I recommend a two-day workshop with ongoing
consultation with a consensus trainer, in person or online.
Learning consensus involves learning how write effective proposals, create effective
agendas, articulate concerns about a proposal and suggest modifications in meetings, and
become an effective meeting participant. Some members of the group also need to learn the
skills of meeting facilitation.
Sidebar 2
L’arche de Saint-Antoine’s Modifications
The L’Arche de Saint Antoine community in France originally began with consensus-with-
unanimity, but later modified their decision rules for different kinds of decisions. They still use the
consensus process itself with presenting and discussing proposals, but now some of their
decisions require various percentages of super-majority voting while others still require
consensus-with-unanimity, or 100 percent. Their decision rules are: (1) 66 percent – Proposals in
committee meetings. (2) 75 percent – Proposals in monthly business meetings. (3) 100 percent
(consensus-with-unanimity) – Approving provisional and full members, annually electing their
Director, and changing their Bylaws.
Sidebar 3 (Sabine, would you please check with someone rather official at Sieben Linden to get
the latest, most accurate version of their method? I spoke with Ita from Sieben Linden a few
days ago at the GEN conference here and she says they now have five options in their decision-
making, not four, because they’ve modified it again, since I first learned their new method. Thank
you!)
Sieben Linden’s Modifications
In the early 2000’s Sieben Linden Ecovillage in Germany modified their consensus process,
changing their decision rule from three options: support the proposal, stand aside, and block, to
four options: support the proposal, stand aside, don’t support the proposal (because of not
having read it or not caring about it), and block.
Sieben Linden requires a 75 percent supermajority of people who support the proposal to
pass it. Thus a proposal passes only under two conditions: if more than 75 percent support it and
also if there are no blocks. If enough people had no opinion or didn’t like the proposal much or
stood aside, there would be less than 75 percent supporting the proposal and it wouldn’t pass.
But if at least 75 percent supported the proposal, it would pass unless there was one or more
blocks. If there is just one block, the next step is similar to the N St. Consensus Method. The
person who blocked meets with proposal advocates in solution-oriented meetings in order to
create a new proposal that addresses the same issues as the original proposal. If this doesn’t
happen, the original proposal comes back and passes with a 75 percent supermajority vote, Thus
the block is overruled and the proposal passes.
If the proposal is blocked by two or more people, however, they use the same process.
But if no new proposal is created in the solution-oriented meetings, the blocks stand and the
proposal does not pass.
Sidebar 4
Earthaven’s Modifications
Like L’Arche de Saint-Antoine, Earthaven uses the consensus process for presenting and
discussing proposals, but changed its decision rule to a simple vote.
When it’s time to decide a proposal, the facilitator asks if anyone doesn’t support it. If no one
says they don’t support it, it passes. However, if one or more people don’t support the proposal,
each is asked, one at a time, why they believe the proposal either violates Earthaven’s mission
and purpose, or why passing it would be more harmful or dangerous for the community than
choosing an alternative proposal or doing nothing. Their comments are recorded in the minutes.
This is followed by a minute of silence and this process is repeated two more times.
The facilitator then calls for a vote and counts the numbers of Yeses and Nos. (1) If 85
percent or more say Yes to the proposal, it passes. (2) If less than 50 percent say Yes, the
proposal does not pass. (Its advocates can rewrite the proposal and try again in the future if they
like.) (3) But if the number of Yeses falls somewhere between 50 percent and 85 percent, the
proposal does not pass — as there’s not enough support for it — but it’s not laid aside either. As
in the N St. Consensus Method, some who voted No and some who voted Yes hold a series of
solution-oriented meetings to create a new proposal to address the same issues as the first
proposal.
If a new proposal is created it is presented at the next meeting. But if no new proposal is
created, the first proposal comes back and passes with a 66 percent supermajority vote.
Sidebar 5
Multi-Winner Voting
When a community must choose from among several choices, such as when approving line items
on an annual operations budget, they can use multi-winner voting as a supplement to their usual
decision-making method. This involves finding a way for the greatest number of members to get
the most of what they want. Multi-winner voting is a system adopted from European
parliamentary elections in which each person gets a certain number of votes to spread across a
range of choices.
Sharingwood Cohousing in Washington State uses multi-winner voting as a proportional
spending method for its annual discretionary funding allocation. Once a year Sharingwood
members hold a “budget party” to decide what project they’ll fund the following year. They dress
up in fancy clothes for wine and cheese in their Common House. Each member receives an
envelope of play money as they enter, which represents his or her real power in the decision-
making. This is the amount of money in the discretionary budget fund for the following year,
divided by the number of community members — “voters” — who attend the budget party.
Various members or committees sponsor projects they’d like to see funded the following
year, and set up displays in the room, which the guests visit during the evening. A “New
Retaining Wall” display, for example, might have a short sample rock wall and a member-
advocate of the project who explains the benefits of the project.
Party guests spend various amounts of their play money on one or more of the proposed
projects they like best. As soon as a project gets wholly funded its sponsors ring a bell and
announce it — “The retaining wall is funded!” — to everyone’s cheers. Since more projects are
proposed for the next year than Sharingwood has money for, not all projects get enough play-
money funding. At the end of the budget party, sponsors of the least-funded project donate their
contributions to the almost-funded projects. This way the greatest number of people fund the
greatest number of their favorite projects.
