Is Consensus The Solution To Your Problems?
by Manoj Sharma of CusJo
The Context — Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.
We recognise that since the beginning of time, gathering of all sorts are largely events designed for human being to share and evolve their collective thought process. That the evolution of the thought process creates shared meaning which is the invisible attracting force that binds people together. And while that may have worked as a process yesterday, its just not so today and almost certainly won’t be tomorrow, as our shared meaning is getting weaker by the day. That technology is the problem and can also be the solution.
Modern technology with its ability to instantaneous connect everyone is ironically also causing the quality and depth of communication to break down everywhere. There is a flood of information, but a desert of meaningful shared experiences. Harmful levels of uncertainty, confusion and un-productivity are resulting out of this poor, ill and mis communication at work, home and at play.
Even when people get together and convene around what is supposed to be a structured elevation of collective appreciation, the purpose largely fails. The reason being, the bulk of these events, conventions, dialogues, summits, etcetera are simply a case of a few people speaking and possibly even fewer people genuinely listening without prejudice, to whatever is being articulated. And to compound matters its almost exclusively a one-way street. Human dialogue, be it at community gathering, corporate town hall or on the largest political stage seems to be totally broken.
The Lost Art Of A Genuine Dialogue.
Which brings me to the lost art of a genuine dialogue. Genuine dialogue is the process of collectively creating a new appreciation of reality and it fundamentally requires everyone to listen without prejudice and without feeling the need to influence each other to their point of view. It has to be built on the bedrock of truth and not cognitive, in-group, attribution, self-serving, confirmation and belief biases, halo-effects and groupthink. For a genuine dialogue to take place, everyone has to check-into their own conscience, not block others, and create a space for others to articulate their truth with compassion.
Our modern attempt at dialogue seems to have become a flawed process, and we all have a part to play in its failings. This is because while we all have our backgrounds, perspectives, positions, interests assumptions and opinions, we struggle to break away from them sufficiently to listen objectively and fully take in the experience, thoughts, perspectives and expertise of others who are sharing their point of view. This tragedy is most obvious at events that are billed as dialogues where innovative solutions to complex problems are sought. Instead of a genuine dialogue what often transpires is people imposing their views on others, speaking at each other or worse still copping out of the conversation, having their own side discussions and sitting on the sidelines without participating and in the process, and as a result starving the conversation of the diversity of thought it needs. The result being that when the gathering is over, everyone goes on their merry way with little or no consensus to drive everyone forward towards a situation in which there is collective gain for all. In the absence of a common repository of human experience and a flow of meaning, the fragmentation becomes even more pronounced. The reality is, when consensus is absent, connection is lost and when connection is lost, life seems to be meaningless.
The Dynamics Of Consensus.
It is with that in mind that we are seeking to understand the dynamics of consensus. Our understanding thus far is that consensus is not the same as unanimity, in that it’s not about getting 100% agreement and that even a 51% voting majority on a topic does not establish consensus. That to establish consensus there has to be an open, truthful and mature conversation first. That consensus is not just a case of people sharing their thoughts and opinions but there also must be a genuine willingness to listen to and appreciate other people’s point of view, especially when they are at conflict with our own.
That un-productivity arises when there is no consensus. The lack of consensus has the undesirable effect of people pulling in different directions. And anyone who has ever run a tight ship knows, when consensus is lacking energy is wasted and time is lost. That it’s easy to come to consensus in a small group, but not so in a large group even though it is clearly more necessary. That consensus is a very powerful thing. That the focus of 10% with consensus outweighs the 90% who lack consensus. That consensus in action is focus and focus has a way of fuelling itself with passion and desire.
That when looking for consensus, voting is not the solution, as voting forces one to choose between what they have a preference for over another that is less preferred. That voting voids the in-between ground and thus has the effect of polarisation, which could result in further conflict and division instead of getting to a mature consensus. That giving a middle ground option in a voting format is still a case of forcing people to choose in a fixed format, thus discounting the possibility of new ideas coming forth from assimilating the points of views of others and building upon them as the context of the conversation self-educates and re-shapes itself. That the other problem with voting is that one can take a position without the need to articulate the reasons for taking that position, and while that may be an established legacy and may well be necessary under some narrow conditions, it actually does very little to contribute towards establishing consensus.
Nevertheless, there is something to be learn from voting and applying to the context of establishing consensus. Chiefly the component of time and action. That when some degree of consensus is established within an agreed or stipulated time, it’s important to move forward and not wait any longer for further input. That this is a fair process as long as everyone has been given an equal opportunity to share their point of view transparently without any preferment or disadvantage. That operating within a stipulated time is necessary to prevent a situation in which some parties may deliberately choose to sit by the sidelines and not partake in the conversation in the hope that the rest of the group cannot move forward without them; thus giving them an opportunity to use that to gain leverage for their point of view to be more heavily weighted.
That seeking as broad and encompassing an opinion is not necessary but preferred, as it enriches the conversation and gives an equal opportunity for opinions at the fringe that serve the interest on minorities to be connected to the centre. Thus allowing for a more encompassing consensus that works for as many people in the group as possible.
That the fair establishment of consensus has to make a provision and provide the opportunity for people to reeducate their point of view and change the context of their thinking. That it’s necessary when it comes to establishing consensus that everyone is given timely if not immediate access to all points of view as they come in, to feed the evolution of their understanding. That everyone has a right to as many opportunities within the stipulated time to articulate and re-articulate their evolving point of view. Just, in the same way, as it has been taking place since the beginning of human civilisation in small gatherings of communities in villages and town squares. Except it now needs to be extended to a large scale national, regional and globally connected world without people even having to be in the same place at the same time.
That consensus is an ongoing process. It needs to be revisited again and again periodically. That action has to be taken where there is consensus and where there isn’t, a further invitation to establish consensus has to be extended. That consensus while of paramount importance to move the world forward towards its highest ideals, is still not the established purpose at all manner of international, regional national, constituency, community, think-tank, policy-making, employee, customer, and market research engagements.
We’ve Been Working On Building A Pretty Cool Consensus Engine.
So, we’ve been working on a technology that is designed to bring conversations to a focus, by inviting people to share their thoughts in real-time as often as they would like in a large group setting with people having the flexibility to be in physical proximity or geographically spread out over vast distances. A technology to give everyone a fair, transparent and ongoing voice to shape the conversation. So everyone can discover the unspoken truth of collective thought, tap into the wisdom of crowds and benefit from it, in real-time.
We’ve prototyped it in various settings and observed the benefits of people coming together, sharing freely without agenda to serve the collective and common good. That there is value in removing the pressure to come to any decision, with equal leadership spread amongst all. That when an openness to listening exists, especially to a point of view absolutely contrary to our own, diversity comes to the core, flourishes and nourishes the soul, while illuminating the mind. That when people are willing to empty the cup of what they hold dear, the new appreciation of reality can take us places we have not yet been. And that in our inability to naturally return to dialogue to establish consensus we may need to leverage technology to bridge the gap without fear or favour.
An Invitation To Establish Consensus And Reshape Your World
If you’re interested to check out and get involved with using our technology at your international, regional national, constituency, community, think-tank, policy-making, employee, customer, market research engagement or event, let us know by contacting us.
And if you’d like to share your thoughts on consensus, please do share them at this URL https://demo.cusjo.com/consensus.
