“Blocking potentially gives tremendous power to one or a few individuals, and the only way for that to function successfully is with a check and balance,” advises consensus trainer Tree Bressen (Communities magazine, Summer 2012). “In my experience, every successful consensus system . . . restricts blocking power in order to guard against tyranny of the minority,” she adds (Fall 2012 issue).

Here’s how Earthaven’s new “check and balance” method works:

1. To choose officers in our annual meeting, we adapted a technique from Sociocracy: a series of “go rounds” to nominate and choose people for these roles. We used this method successfully in annual officer elections in our November 25^th and December 9^th Council meetings.
2. To approve incoming new members we retained our previous consensus method.
3. For all other proposals we added criteria for a valid block and a way to test blocks against that criteria (i.e., a block is declared invalid if 85% of Council members present say it’s invalid).

For any remaining blocks that have been declared valid, we use an adaptation of the N St. Consensus Method, in which blockers and several proposal advocates participate in up to three solution-oriented meetings to co-create a new proposal that addresses the same issues as the first proposal. If they cannot, the original proposal comes back to the next Council for a decision using consensus-minus-one (meaning it takes two blocks, not one, to stop the proposal).

The post Earthaven’s New Decision-Making Method appeared first on Earthaven Ecovillage.

Many consensus trainers tell us consensus-with-unanimity is good for communities. It creates a sense of trust and connection, a sense of harmony, they say, since everyone’s agreement is first required to pass a proposal.

Though I believed this for years, I no longer do. I now believe that using consensus-with-unanimity, especially with no recourse, actually harms most communities.

One of the reasons is that people often misunderstand and misuse the blocking privilege. This often results in the unintended consequences of discouragement, low morale, diminished meeting attendance and others such as:

• People able to endure more conflict may prevail, creating “decision by endurance.”
• Disproportionate power to whoever supports the status quo.
• Community stagnation (unable to change or evolve).
• Power struggles may drive out some of the group’s most responsible, effective members.

What Works Better Instead?

There are three collaborative, win-win methods. The N Street Consensus Method, Sociocracy and Holacracy do not allow the kinds of power-over dynamics that can occur with consensus-with-unanimity. Communities that use these methods don’t tend to have the unintended consequences that can occur when using consensus-with-unanimity. Rather, these methods tend to generate a sense of connection, trust, and well-being in the group.

This article was excerpted from a Part I article of the same name that appears in Communities Magazine, Summer 2012 issue. Click here to learn more about this issue, which focuses on the theme ‘Diversity,’ or to purchase the magazine.

Diana Leafe Christian, an Earthaven member, is author of the books Creating a Life Together and Finding Community, publisher of Ecovillages, a free online newsletter about ecovillages worldwide, and a columnist for Global Ecovillage Network. Click here for Diana’s website.

The post Busting the Myth That Consensus-with-Unanimity is Good for Communities appeared first on Earthaven Ecovillage.

“This is harder than I thought!” exclaimed Ohbeeb. She was in front of the room practicing facilitating a meeting. She was saying, “Excuse me; would you like to get on the stack?” to another participant who was having fun pretending to be mildly disruptive.

It was our annual weekend workshop, “Earthaven Governance & Consensus, and Introduction to Facilitation,” held in the Council Hall November 20-21.

I continued to coach Ohbeeb, who practiced this phrase several times, interrupting the person who was acting disruptive.

“You need to hear yourself saying this phrase, over and over,” I said,  “until you create new neural pathways.” Ohbeeb practiced stopping the disrupter several more times until she began doing it quite well.

We hold this workshop once a year for people on our membership track. This year’s participants included Troy, Norm, Ohbeeb, Carly, Liz, Susan, Evelyn, and Curt.

Saturday was about consensus, and included Earthaven’s governance process (our Orbos, committees, and managers), and consensus essentials — strong agendas, well-crafted proposals, skilled facilitation, trained participants, evaluations — among other topics.

Sunday was an overview of the facilitation process, and time for practice. This is where we got to see

people’s acting abilities, since when someone practiced everyone else played the role of meeting participants — often hilariously.

Jonathan, as guest instructor, described the process of facilitating complex topics.

People gathered in small groups to practice creating proposals. They described what they’d like to change or improve about Earthaven, and we noted which of these ideas fell under Earthaven’s governance and could be addressed by a proposal, and which would not be governance but addressed by a private project. People in small groups practiced creating and presenting proposals, and the whole group gave feedback.

In the “Name the Member” game, people called out the name of Earthaven members and I described what official roles each member has played in the community, the committees they’ve served on, and the projects they’ve initiated or managed, plus other myriad ways they’ve contributed to Earthaven. New folks always seem impressed by our governance, and the many ways our members have given and served Earthaven over the years.

Several participants told me the workshop because gave them a much better sense of Earthaven’s governance and how they can participate. “It shouldn’t be called a consensus training,” Art said after the 2009 training. “It should be called, ‘How to Become Empowered at Earthaven’.”

 Earthaven member Diana Leafe Christian is an internationally known ecovillage activist, author of Creating a Life Together and Finding Community (New Society Publishers), and publisher of Ecovillages newsletter. Click here for her website.

The post Learning Consensus at Earthaven appeared first on Earthaven Ecovillage.

“In communities plagued with conflict, of course plain old interpersonal conflict is often going on. But the group is usually also experiencing what I call ‘structural conflict.’  This is where certain important ‘structures’ are missing. This alone can lead to huge conflict in communities.”

          Earthaven member Diana Leafe Christian was telling me about her work as a traveling consultant to communities. Diana is author of two books: Creating a Life Together: Practical Tools to Grow Ecovillages and Intentional Communities and Finding Community: How to Join an Ecovillage or Intentional Community. For many years she edited Communities magazine, and now publishes a free online newsletter, Ecovillages. She travels internationally to talk about ecovillages in conferences and workshops, and to help community groups that call on her for help and advice. In her experience, there are only a few typical problems that come up communities, usually the result of what she calls “structural conflict.” If these important structures are absent, she says, conflict often results.

          Here is the rest of our interview:

Diana: “For example, in some communities not all members know what the group’s agreements are. Or they might not have access to information on recent meeting decisions. Sometimes there are no published minutes, or no minutes available online — the group could be six months behind in posting minutes. Some community members might have this important information and know what’s going on. But not everyone does. This creates a power imbalance. The solution? Even if you have to pay money or labor credits to get your meeting minutes up to date, do it! Make sure this information gets out to everyone!”

           “Another common problem is having no system of labor credit or no way to manage and track the labor system. With no system, only those people who feel moved to volunteer time and energy to the community end up doing everything — and they often get burned out. Sometimes, even when most people want the community to have labor requirements, one or two members object, believing, ‘If it’s really community, people would just want to work!’ Or they object to tracking people’s labor through some kind of labor-tracking sheets, like our ‘Leap Sheets’ here. Those who do want to have labor requirements, and to track it, are often accused of acting like corporations!  But in fact, communities that have labor requirements, and a method to manage and track people’s work hours, tend to have higher morale and lower burn-out.”

          Alice: What else do you see in communities?

Diana: “Well, sometimes a group doesn’t have a clear and unambiguous mission and purpose. If their mission and purpose statement is vague, conflict can arise when people interpret it differently. This shows up with proposals. One person can argue that a proposal is not in line with the community’s mission and purpose, and perhaps block it. But advocates of the proposal are sure it does express the group’s mission and purpose. These disagreements are exacerbated if the group uses pure consensus. In pure consensus everyone must agree for a proposal to pass. What an awful Catch-22! One of the requirements for using consensus in the first place is having a clear, unequivocal mission and purpose!”

          “A related problem for groups that use consensus is too-frequent blocking or blocking to express personal values, rather than the group’s shared, agreed-upon values. Some communities follow the advice of consensus trainer CT Butler and have criteria for what constitutes a principled block. An ecovillage in British Columbia, EcoReality Co-op, and three cohousing communities in the US: Eastern Village, Wild Sage and Silver Sage, all have agreed-upon, written-down criteria for what is a principled block. In addition, they have clearly agreed-on procedures for how their facilitators can test whether or not a block is principled.”

          Alice: Anything else groups can do about this?

Diana: “N Street Cohousing in Davis, California reduces this kind of structural conflict by requiring anyone blocking a proposal to be part of the solution. Someone who blocks has to come up with a new proposal, working in small-group meetings with advocates of the proposal.  If no new proposal is created within their series of meetings, the first proposal is brought back,  and it only needs a 75 percent supermajority vote to pass. N Steet has used this method for 22 years, and there’ve only been only two blocks, with two small-group meetings each, in the whole time. Only four small-group meetings about blocks in 22 years! I like this method because it deters frivolous blocking while still respecting anyone who blocks. It respects the blocking person by giving them many meetings and a relatively long time to convince others that the original proposal was a bad idea and to suggest a better idea. And it respects the advocates of the original proposal too — all they have to do is wait.”

          Alice: Could you say more about “structural conflict”?

Diana: “New-member orientation courses are another way to reduce this. Twin Oaks, Dancing Rabbit, and The Farm all have orientation courses for incoming members. These give new folks much-needed information about the community’s history, purpose, and functioning. I’m so happy Earthaven is doing this too, with such as our consensus training, our new “Land Use/Permaculture” workshop, and our new “Sustainable Economics at Earthaven” presentation.”

          “Another conflict reducer is creating agreements for how people communicate in meetings. Typical communication agreements often include ‘No interrupting’ and ‘No pejorative comments about people in the meeting or their ideas.’ The facilitator reminds the group when a communication agreement is breeched, and participants encourage each other to comply.”

          Alice: It seems like many of your contributions here have been a result of your experience in the wider communities movement, all the places you’ve been. So tell us a little more about your travels.

          Diana: “One of the more exciting trips I’ve taken lately was to the Philippines. In April I taught in the first Global Ecovillage Network-sponsored EDE (Ecovillage Design Education) course there. I’ll be doing it again in August with students from mainland China! I also just got back from speaking at the first-ever communities gathering in Quebec — which I loved. And I basically had the time of my life in 2007 as a speaker at the Japanese Ecovillage Conference in Tokyo. But as much as I like meeting ecovillagers in other countries, I always love coming home to Earthaven.”

Alice Henry is an Earthaven member and water and sanitation expert who serves on Earthaven’s EarthDelver committees. Diana Leafe Christian has formerly served on Membership, Promotions, and Land Use committees. dianaleafechristian.org http://www.EcovillageNews.org

The post On “Structural Conflict”: An Interview with Diana Leafe Christian appeared first on Earthaven Ecovillage.

Culture’s Edge

We have also become the umbrella organization for independent educational projects, including the Forest Children Program, Camp Katuah, The Natural Building School, Patricia Allison and Friends’ Sustainable Living Skills internships and classes, and a program we simply call Earthaven Ecovillage, our volunteers who host tours and facilitate long-term on-site work study opportunities.

This year we are planning to sponsor workshops in Qigong, The Power of Manifestation, Homeopathy, and Plant Wisdom.  See www.earthaven.org for a listing of current classes.  Tax-deductible donations of any size can be earmarked for any of these programs.  You can support scholarships for education, or tell us that you want us to use your donation wherever it’s most needed for education and outreach.

Culture’s Edge was established as a not-for-profit company in 1996, shortly after Earthaven was formed. Culture’s Edge was a way to focus our passion for education and create opportunities for livelihood.  At first we offered courses in the three areas central to our own development: permaculture, natural building, and consensus decision making.  Over time, training in the agricultural arts, building arts, communication arts, and healing arts were added, filling almost every weekend from May through October for several years running.

While focusing on internal reorganization in 2006, we slowed down and most of the classes held that year were privately organized.  This past year, the introduction of Health Dept. requirements into Earthaven’s midst (see article, Are You Hep?) cut short our educational calendar for the season, which, though hard on the village economy, did give us the opportunity to consider how our future plans might branch out.  In particular, we feel excited about expanding longer-term internship programs, in which the opportunities for life changing experiences are the greatest.

This year, Culture’s Edge is offering the courses and programs that nurture a healthy & sustainable world and offer you practical solutions.  Our programs are taught by a dynamic team of instructors and contribute to Earthaven’s village economy.

The post Arts At The Edge appeared first on Earthaven Ecovillage.