Collective Decision Making

How we make decisions together is very important to us. We are acutely aware of the power dynamics involved in this and the collective wounding that impacts us all in regard to how we relate with decision-making and power.

What follows draws heavily on our co-founders’ experience with collective decision making – and particularly on Claire’s 3.5 year training and lived experience in ‘shared governance’ whilst working for Transition Network and being trained by Universite de Nous, and Peter’s training in Sociocracy. The collective decision-making we describe below is part of what we can call ‘shared governance’.

Most of us grew up in environments with adults who were not able to exercise their power in entirely healthy ways and who likely struggled to consider all of our needs when using their power to make decisions. This means that most of us are understandably highly suspicious of hierarchy because it has likely caused us a lot of pain. Meanwhile it is possible to make hierarchical decisions in a healthy way – if we are able to take into consideration the needs of all those our decisions will impact.

We want to create a collective decision making process within which:

– everyone has clarity around who the decision makers are within any given context, situation and decision-making process.

– decision-makers consider the needs of anyone (human and otherwise) that our decisions will impact – and actively seek their input where appropriate.

– decision-makers seek advice from those who have relevant experience or expertise.

– when appropriate we, as a group, use a consent-based process or we, as a group, clearly defer power to individuals and working groups (circles) to make decisions (for example someone might be holding a specific role that has clearly agreed accountabilities that include having decision making power for certain things.

– we call this ‘blended’ decision-making since it combines horizontal (consent-based) and vertical (hierarchical) decision-making.

A food growing example …

It is very conceivable that we will have a Food Forest Coordination Role within this co-housing group. This role, like all other roles, will have a clearly defined purpose and accountabilities (which would be about coordinating food growing activities – rather than having to grow all the food themselves!)

This Food Forest Coordinator Role may well be given the power to make decisions around what we plant and when. This would mean that they are not required to go through a consent decision-making process, but that they would be required to consider the needs of those whose decisions will impact and seek input from them where possible. They would also be required to seek advice from those with relevant experience and expertise, if appropriate.

The consent-based process

Proposal forming

Someone (or a working group) develops a proposal by seeking input from those the decision will impact and anyone who has relevant experience or expertise, if appropriate. To a large extent proposal forming is an intuitive right-brain creative activity that weaves together individual needs and perspectives with that which will serve the whole group and its vision and values.

Decision-making process

Once the person (or group) developing the proposal thinks the proposal is ready and likely to gain consent they bring the proposal to the group at a meeting or via an online format. The group then agrees on a facilitator (someone other than the proposer) who then guides the group through the following process:

* Clarification round (do you have any clarifying questions? I.e. is there anything you do not understand about the proposal?)
* Responses round (how do you feel about this proposal – including any concerns?)
* Consent round (do you consent, consent with concern or object?)

Objection rights

– an objection is considered reasonable if it:

*relates to requiring someone to do something that feels beyond their limits

*relates to putting at risk the group’s vision, values or agreements

And we will be exploring what other criteria feel important to include in terms of what constitutes a ‘reasonable’ objection.
– anyone who becomes a full member will be granted objection rights – and part of the process of becoming a member will be based on demonstrating a good understanding of and ability to participate in ways that centre the needs of the whole.

– we recognise that finding healthy ways to meet our own needs is a prerequisite for being able to centre the needs of the whole because this is how we activate the parasympathetic part of our nervous-system, which determines our capacity for healthy relating (social engagement).

– we see objections as gifts: when we trust those with objection rights to be using them in service of the whole we are able to embrace any objections as a gift in our trust that it will improve our decision.

– this is why for us it is vital that objection rights are only granted to those who have demonstrated an ability to use them with integrity – in service of the whole.

– when this boundary is held, we are able to embrace objections as gifts because we trust that anyone voicing an objection is doing it because they perceive it to be in service to the whole.

– people with objection rights are also able to object to a decision at any point after it has been made, if needed.

How we dance with responses, concerns and objections in each of these rounds is too much to go into right here – it is something that needs to be learned in practice!

Potential members

– the needs and perspectives of potential members will be included within all decision-making and they will be invited to participate in any whole-group consent-based decision-making processes that take place (without objection rights).

– potential members will not have objection rights until members have agreed they have a good enough understanding and ability to use these rights with integrity – in service to the whole.
– this means it is essential that potential members trust those with objection rights to take their needs into consideration and to make decisions with integrity – in service to the whole.

What’s the difference between consensus and consent-based decision-making?

Unlike consensus decision-making, consent-based decision-making seeks a decision that feels ‘good enough for now and safe enough to try’. This is in contrast to consensus decision-making which seeks to find a decision that everyone feels is the best decision – which of course is a lot harder to achieve, takes a lot longer, and very often ends up in frustrations and conflict.

We believe collective decision-making has the potential to be a deeply transformatory process in and of itself such that when we engage consciously with it and its intentions our natural centre of gravity begins to shift from ‘I’ to ‘we’ whilst seeing ourselves as an integral part of that ‘we’.

Healthy flexible boundaries – our Exclusion Process

The health and future of our community requires us to be willing to hold healthy boundaries in relation to behaviours that are putting this at risk. Our Agreements provide reference points such that if a community member is consistently unable to bring themselves in alignment with our values, relational agreements and community agreements and this is having a significant impact within the community, we may need to suspend or exclude that member from the community.

This may be temporary in order to create some space for the community member and/or community to find support around the challenge they are experiencing, or it may be permanent, depending on the situation, degree and nature of impact, and dynamics involved.

When we sign up as members we agree to respecting any consent-based decisions made by the community in regard to the need to suspend or exclude us.

We imagine the exclusion process running like this –

Feedback is initially offered to the respective member regarding how their behaviour is having an impact (in alignment with our Relational agreements around offering and receiving regenerative feedback and practicing self-responsibility).
If this feedback does not result in a behavior change such that the Relational Agreements are not being respected, help is sought to explore what needs to happen.
If the Relational Agreements are still not being respected then one or more members bring their concerns about another member(s) to a group meeting where as many members are present as possible. All parties are heard, and seek understanding of each other’s experiences and needs, and how the group agreements may be being broken. Proposals and intentions may be made, and requests may be given by the group for changes in behaviour, with timelines for that.
A month after the topic has first been formally brought to a meeting like that, any member may propose a suspension or exclusion of the individuals from the community. This proposal needs to be communicated to all members of the group at least a week before the meeting happens where this will be discussed.
The decision to suspend or exclude someone is decided by vote, (this is the only time we use voting rather than a consent round). To pass, it requires three quarters of the community with full objection rights to agree to the decision. Members being potentially excluded or suspended do not have voting rights in this matter, but will be given time during the meeting to explain their situation before the vote is taken.

We recognise that this will likely be a very painful process for all involved and as a community we commit to keeping our hearts wide open and staying in relation with this pain – our own and that arising in others.

We will seek legal advice to ensure this is a legally binding agreement.