Formal Consensus Article 1997

Report on the Formal Consensus Workshop - London September 27-28 1997 by Fran Robinson

 

Background

In November 1996 I heard that the ATI were going to experiment running their AGM using Formal Consensus instead of using Roberts Rules (the American equivalent to parliamentary procedure where one political party, one belief system, is always pitted against another) . It was thought that this could be a way of trying to operate using Alexander’s own principles at their own meetings. I downloaded C.T. Butler’s book “On Conflict and Consensus” from the Internet* and took off to the 1996 ATI AGN to which C.T. Butler had been invited.

 

I have described what happened in “Multiple Threads - Reflections of a Non-Joiner” which was printed in the ATN Newsletter and in the ATI’s journal “Exchange” . **

 

 

The Meeting - participants and material covered

 

On 27th and 28th September, 1997 C.T. Butler gave a Workshop on Formal Consensus in London which was attended by approximately 30 people. The majority of the participants were Alexander Technique teachers. Members of STAT, ATI, ATN, Naval and SVLAT came from Holland, France, Germany, Switzerland and England. The non—Alexander teachers included a business man who thought it might be helpful in dealings with his staff, and two people involved in Non-Violent Communication came to see if they could use it for running their own meetings.

 

The weekend was all too short both to absorb the amount of material we were covering and also to understand the deep significance of these concepts concerning running meetings from a totally different perspective and ethos. We started with some definitions from a Formal Consensus viewpoint, which were to challenge our usual ways of thinking of a) the procedure of a meeting and b) what we wanted as an outcome from a meeting. Using a hypothetical proposal we also practised the Formal Consensus model itself, This experiential work, where we learned various roles and techniques, was of great importance for an understanding of the model. It made us realize how easy it was to slip into the old ways of thinking which were, of course, based on our old concepts of antagonistic, debating—style meetings.

 

 

From my notes: Formal Consensus definitions:

 

- Conflict is neutral, is inevitable, is connected to creativity. Something new in relation to the status quo is desirable. The problem is how we live this conflict. It should be welcomed and seen as an opportunity to grow. We are not seeking the right decision but the best decision.

- Consensus is challenging as a word. Consensus is about “let that happen”

and is based on the idea of consent.

 

- Voting in meetings conducted according to parliamentary procedure is based on ‘do you agree?’ - leaving those who don’t agree disappointed, frustrated and, because they are in opposition, frequently organise themselves to overthrow the decision at some point in the future and so on ad infinitum.

 

-Voting in meetings using the Formal Consensus model is a different tool from the usual voting tool. It is not based on agreement or disagreement with the original proposal. By the time voting takes place, the original proposal may well have been modified, so voting is based on ‘Is this the best we can do? Can we let this happen?

 

 -C.T. Butler points out that one way is not better than the other, they work in different environments. It is also possible to use techniques of co-operation within the environment of competition and vice-versa. From my so-far limited experience of Formal Consensus, however, this would only be possible when one has a fluent degree of knowledge and practice of the new procedures.

 

- Equality: Equal power is not possible, regardless of the intent. We have no control over some things like the history of the group, societal standing, personal power etc. Therefore equality means equal access to power. The group should be committed to providing equal access to power, training possibilities, and access to the structure of the group. This is a move away from equal power, to equal access through trust and respect.

 

Trust and Respect: A high degree of trust or respect rarely start off as possibilities - but people should be open to trust as a possibility, and be aware of showing respect for other people and their opinions.

 

The Agenda: In Formal Consensus agenda-planning is of enormous importance. The Agenda is the first consensual agreement, and as a contract cannot be broken unless a new consensus is agreed.

 

Concepts, Roles, and Levels 1, 2 & 3

One of the objects of the Formal Consensus approach is to allow all members to voice their concerns without fear. If an atmosphere is created in which that is possible, people start to feel involved in the group and its aims. Where there has been a history of fear, dysfunction and disaffection in the group, a skilled Facilitator can help create a healing environment, and it is considered that the only way the group is able to heal is to allow the emotions out and not suppress them. In the Formal Consensus way of thinking the person is more important than the agenda. The skilled Facilitator would have experience of a range of modern techniques used in groups, (brainstorming, go-rounds, fishbowl discussion, small groups, caucusing etc.-  which he/she can suggest the group use at appropriate moments to move the process on. The role of the Facilitator is very important and is not necessarily that of the permanent Chairperson. The Facilitator’s role, as other roles used in Formal Consensus (Public Note Taker, Scribe, Doorkeeper, Timekeeper, Advocate and Peacekeeper etc.), could rotate amongst members of the group so all members can learn all skills.

 

C.T. Butler maintains that organisations using Formal Consensus as a tool for running meetings are not open to being high-jacked by covert inner groups or individuals with hidden agendas - he backs up this assertion by citing examples of politically—oriented groups in the USA who were open to being infiltrated by the CIA.

 

One of the most significant Formal Consensus concepts to understand and accept is that once a proposal is put on the table it ceases to be the property of the proposer - it becomes the property of the group. Realising the full importance of this idea changes the total ethos of meetings, they become meetings based on means where-by rather than personal end-gaining. Therefore the generic question behind every proposal is “How does this proposal serve the best interest of the group?” and NOT “How does this give me power and massage my ego?”

 

One of the criticisms levelled against Formal Consensus is that it takes a long time. That may be true in the early learning stage (though I am not sure even of this) but according to C.T. Butler, who is teaching this model to groups of over a thousand people, this is not the case. Unpopular decisions pushed through quickly in parliamentary-style meetings never work properly anyway, and are overturned by disaffected people as soon as possible, whose decisions in turn are then overthrown…

Leading towards Consensus (or any other of the three alternative closing options offered by Formal Consensus) there are three clearly defined levels to be fo11owed:

Level 1 is a broad and open discussion of the proposal (like assembling pieces of a jig—saw puzzle),

Level 2 identifies concerns only, this is a concise and directed level,

i.e.     Where and what are the issues?

Level 3 once concerns are identified this level is linear and focused and aims to resolve concerns. The proposal can be modified or altered. Consensus can be reached

All meetings should end with an Evaluation as to how the meeting went. This is

in itself, a very important learning tool.

 

It is not my purpose to teach Formal Consensus here, I am not qualified to do so, but I do want to give a taste of the possibilities of change it offers, and also to let English—based teachers know that in other countries and other societies teachers are moving from fixed positions to building bridges of tolerance and reconciliation. In the USA, despite a difficult history, bridges are being built between NASTAT and the ATI. After the London Formal Consensus Workshop, invited by some French teachers, C.T. Butler went to Paris to repeat his workshop there.

Conclusions and a Proposal

My experience has been that as sincere individuals we set ourselves up to teach other people awareness, choice and changing the habits of a life­time, while collectively we are frequently mirroring how conflict is handled in the outside world. For example, from recent issues of STATNEWS it is clear to see the old animosities are still going strong. The divisiveness that this generates among teachers seems to have led to a largely disaffected membership, from whom it is sometimes difficult to raise a quorum. It is impossible to calculate the amount of damage, time, passion and commitment spent in maintaining these long-standing battles, battles which are very bad for our own self—esteem as teachers - and certainly do not give us a good image in the outside world.

 

I believe that Formal Consensus gives us a framework in which we can learn how to relate as individuals in a collective situation in the (semi) public domain of our own meetings. It gives us a working method, which can be seen as based on Inhibition and Direction, and gives us exciting new areas into which to explore ‘work on the self’.

 

Hopefully, the thinking is already going this way - administrative difficulties have led us to engage a business consultant to look into how STAT can best move into the twenty—first Century. I would like to suggest that we explore Formal Consensus. If there are enough members interested we could ask C.T. Butler to introduce his ideas to us so we can choose whether to explore them further.

 

C.T. Butler writes… “we must learn to live together co—operatively, resolving our conflicts non-violently and making our decisions consensually. We must learn to value diversity and respect all life, not just on a physical level, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. We are all in this together.”

 

© Fran Robinson

    November 1997

 

 

 

 

 

7