In October Earthaven’s international community researcher and advocate Diana Leafe Christian gave workshops and consultations to several intentional communities in England, and co-led a workshop on Sociocracy at Findhorn Community in Scotland with her teacher and mentor, John Buck, the man who brought Sociocracy to the English-speaking world.

Sociocracy, which means “governance by peers,” is a governance and decision-making method. Earthaven uses Sociocracy’s “Selecting People for Roles” process to elect annual officers.

“Teaching at Findhorn was one of the coolest things I’ve ever done,”

Diana says. “It was an honor to co-lead a workshop with my own teacher and mentor. And do it at Findhorn — one of the oldest and most famous intentional communities in the world. I loved it!”

Findhorn was famous in the 1960s for growing unusually large vegetables on poor sandy soil with apparently channeled gardening advice, and soon became an international spiritual educational center, attracting thousands.

Diana and John led their two-day workshop at Newbold House, a Findhorn-affiliated conference center in the nearby town of Forres, and gave many small introductory workshops to groups of trustees, managers, council members, staff, and others affiliated with the Findhorn Foundation in the wider local community.

The Sociocracy workshop was so popular John and Diana will return to Findhorn to lead it again in May, 2014.

The post Diana Leafe Christian Teaches at Findhorn 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.