PowerPointPresentation (Summary of Handout). · PDF fileDEFINITION – facilitate • ... [of Order] (“Parliamentary Procedure”) Roberts Rules – only one (1) right ........

CConsensusonsensus--BBased ased DDecisionecision--MMakingaking

CBDM WorkshopCBDM Workshop

Narcotics AnonymousNarcotics Anonymous

Dallas Area Service ConferenceDallas Area Service Conference

December 2010December 2010

CBDM WORKSHOP OUTLINE

• Overview / Definitions

OVERVIEW

DEFINITION – consensus

DEFINITION – facilitate

• CBDM vs. Roberts Rules [of Order] (“Parliamentary Procedure”)

Roberts Rules – only one (1) right way

CBDM Origination

CBDM Basic Implementations

CBDM – Spiritual Principles

• CBDM Basic Concepts

Ground Rules

Discussion (anyone) vs. Consensus (“members”)

CBDM: Chosen Implementation / Techniques

(including Straw Polls, Round-robins, Discussions, etc.)

Stand-asides vs. Blocking

• Facilitation

Leadership Qualities

Facilitation Ground Rules

• Summary / Open Forum

Sample Implementation Charts (only on Workshop Handout)

Internet Links (“URL’s”) – Web Refs (only on Workshop Handout)

CBDM Workshop Overview / Definitions

consensus - An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole:

general agreement or accord: government by consensus.

Synonym: accord; agreement

“Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of

most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. � It is used to describe both

general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus

concerned primarily with that process”

Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

facilitate - To make easy or easier - To preside over (a meeting, a seminar)

Synonym: ease; assist

“The term facilitation is broadly used to describe any activity which makes tasks for others easy. ...

“Facilitation is used in business and organizational settings to ensure the designing and running of successful

meetings. ...“A person who takes on such a role is called a facilitator.”

Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitation

CBDM Workshop Definitions

CBDM vs. Roberts Rules [of Order] (“Parliamentary Procedure”)

Roberts Rules implies only one (1) “right” way

-first published in 1870;

-based on the rules and practices of Congress, and presumed that parliamentary procedures (majority rule)

offered the most appropriate model for any and all groups;

-author presumed the Rules of Order would assist an assembly in accomplishing the work for which it was

designed' by "restraining the individual" so that the interests of the group could be met.“

from: "A Short Guide to Consensus Building” http://web.mit.edu/publicdisputes/practice/cbh_ch1.html

Quick Comparison of Robert's Rules [of Order] ("Robert’s") vs. CBDM:

Robert's: Discussion takes the form of a debate with a win-lose approach.

Ideas are treated as the property of the speaker; motions are noted with names.

Dissenters' perspectives suppressed in majority vote.

Winners and Losers

Formal in nature; participants may have adversarial relationship

CBDM: Discussion involves active listening and sharing information.

Ideas and solutions belong to the group ...

Dissenters' perspectives embraced.

CONSENSUS (agreement)

Informal in nature; participants have a common bond

from "Comparison of Robert's Rules of Order and Quaker-based Consensus“ (presented with permission)

http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/rrocomp.shtml


CBDM origination

Consensus evolved from the meeting process of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). It is

a nonviolent way for people to relate to each other as a group. Consensus allows us to recognize our

areas of agreement and to act together without coercing one another. ... The fundamental right of

consensus is for all persons to be able to express themselves in their own words and of their own will;

the fundamental responsibility of consensus is to assure other of their right to speak and to be heard.

“Consensus is the name of a broad category of processes -- it is not the name of one particular

process. The ideals of consensus are not a set of rules ... However, we generally are referring to a set

of rules for decision making that are consistent with the idea and ideals of consensus. Successful use

of consensus process depends on people's understanding the idea and wanting to use it.”


. MYTH / RUMOR: There is only one (1) right way to do CBDM.

FACT: CBDM is a process framework; whatever

implementation of that framework is chosen,

all participants agree to abide by chosen implementation

Ingredients of successful consensus process

• Facilitation (Understanding CBDM / Implementation)

• Group -- Understanding CBDM / Participation / Cooperation

• Listening / Open-mindedness

• Decisions are recorded

PRECEEDING italicized text quoted from Basics of Consensus (by Rob Sandelin) — © Consensus Works!

http://nica.ic.org/Process/Consensusbasics.php



Some potential questions / concepts to consider:

• Should any discussion time limits be imposed overall

• Should any individual time limits be imposed (e.g., 3 mins + 1 min “wrap-up”)

• Does modification (“compromise”) of the idea need to be “approved” by the idea’s maker?

• The Body “owns” the idea once it is on the floor

• QUORUM: ??????

• Who is considered a “member” of the Body and can participate in the “call for consensus”

• Should voting be used ?:

If so, when -- at what time ? If so, what constitutes a “majority” ?

• What form of CBDM “unanimity” should be used:

U minus Zero (0) -- one member can hold an idea “hostage”

U minus One (1), U minus Two (2), U minus Three (3), etc.

• Discussion, Proposal, Modification

• Extended Process / Ad-hocs (“Work Groups”): planning / research / discussion



Some potential implementation concepts / questions:

Should voting be used ?:

If so, when -- at what time ? If so, what constitutes a “majority” ?

• What form of CBDM “unanimity” should be used:

U minus Zero (0) -- one member can hold an idea “hostage”

U minus One (1), U minus Two (2), U minus Three (3), etc.

"As members listen carefully to each other and consult their personal understanding of a loving God,

something happens: Solutions to problems become apparent, solutions that take into consideration

the needs of everyone concerned. In developing a group conscience, a clear mutual understanding or

consensus arises. Based upon the understanding gained by sharing group conscience, a group may

move on to a vote in order to make decisions. In the best of circumstances, however, the group

continues discussion until it reaches unanimity. The resulting solution may be so obvious that no vote

is needed." from Tradition Two as stated in It Works - How and Why (Pg. 136)

“MODIFIED CONSENSUS - Some groups, especially larger ones, use a modified form of consensus

that allows for a fall back to voting if consensus is not working or if someone is blocking a decision that

the group feels strongly about. A vote must be taken to determine if a vote will take place. Both votes

must usually garner 2/3 or 75% approval. A simple majority [sic] is not acceptable.”from Simon Fraser Public Interest Research Group (SFPIRG) -- "Consensus Leaflet"

(http://sfpirg.ca/index.cgi?d=/pirg&g=/consleaflet.pdf)



Some potential implementation concepts / questions:

• Discussion, Proposal, Modification

• Extended Process / Ad-hocs (“Work Groups”):

planning / research / discussion

"Consensus decision process typically goes through three (3) stages:

Discussion, Proposal, Modification

"The discussion stage is where ... the topic is widely discussed. People freely share

thoughts, opinions, feelings, ideas ... When a person misses this stage, they are seriously

handicapped ... because they did not hear any other perspectives ... thus they are limited to only their

own perspective.

"[In] the proposal stage ... thoughts and ideas are synthesized into one or more proposal

statements. ... a good facilitator adds a great value, because they look for the common areas of

understanding and agreement ... and summarize them for the group. As ... common ground emerges

... or ... is created, it is captured in writing.

"[In] the modification stage ... the summary proposal is tested and modified to meet the

needs of the group. ... as the decision is implemented and new things are learned from the

experiences ... in larger groups, a small group takes the discussion information, creates proposals and

comes back at a later time with a proposal for modification.

PRECEEDING italicized text quoted from Basics of Consensus (by Rob Sandelin) — © Consensus Works!



CBDM – Spiritual Principles

APPLICABLE TO: TRADITON or CONCEPT

Group Tradition 1: common welfare / unity

Group / Facilitator Tradition 2: group conscience / trusted servants

Group Tradition 5: primary purpose

Group / Facilitator Tradition 12: anonymity / principles before personalities

Facilitator Concept 42: effective leadership

Group / Facilitator Concept 6: group conscience

Group / Facilitator Concept 7: service body members participate fully in

decision-making process(es)

Group / Facilitator Concept 8: effective communication(s)

Group / Facilitator Concept 9: service structure carefully considers all viewpoints

in decision-making process(es)

Group Concept 102: petition for redress of a personal grievance

Group / Facilitator Concept 12: service structure – not government

Note 1: The Traditions and Concepts shown are applicable to Groups. Additional

Traditions and / or Concepts may or may not apply to other levels of the Service Structure (e.g.,

Areas, Regions, etc.).

Note 2: If the participants apply the CBDM process and its ground rules on a consistent basis and if

the essence of Concept 4 (“effective leadership”) is employed when selecting a facilitator, it is hoped

that Concept 10’s “... redress of a personal grievance ...” will not be necessitated. The essence of

Concept 10 is: “... our fellowship’s guarantee of respect for the individual trusted servant.”

CBDM Basic Concepts

“Consensus is based on the belief that each person has some part of the truth and that no one has all of

it ... It is also based on a respect for all persons involved in the decision being considered.

“Consensus demands a high level of trust among the members of the group. People need to believe

that each member is a fair and reasonable person of integrity who has the organization's best interests

at heart. ...

“Another important element of the consensus process is a good facilitator. This person is responsible for

seeing that everyone is heard, that all ideas are incorporated if they seem to be part of the truth, and

that the final decision is agreed upon by all assembled. The facilitator is the servant of the group, not its

leader. It is his/her job to draw out and focus the best thinking of the group, not to use his/her position

to impose or elevate his/her own.”

PRECEEDING italicized text quoted from: “Consensus Decision Making” (http://www.casagordita.com/consensus.htm)

Ground Rules

stay open-minded (“you” are not always right) - can we agree to disagree ?

listen / share / reflect / compromise - avoid redundant repetition

remember to “play well with others” (tolerance / patience)

don't forget why we're here (common purpose) - be solution-oriented

stay focused on the subject at hand – avoid tangents

conversation is productive ... criticism is unproductive

honor time limits / be concise (make your “point” in a timely manner)

CBDM BASIC CONCEPTS

Discussion (anyone) vs. Consensus (“members”)

Consensus process: Discussion is always part of any CBDM implementation

not necessarily limited, but can be

Call for consensus*: members of the Body only

* erroneously referred to as “the vote” or “voting”

as in: “Who can vote ?” or “Who votes ?”

rather than: “Who participates in the call for consensus?”

“Each participant’s contribution to the decision-making process is important. Determining

participation at the group level is fairly simple: if you’re a group member, you may fully

participate in the group’s decision-making process. Determining participation in the decision-making

processes of most service boards and committees is a little more involved, yet the same basic

principles still apply.”

*PRECEEDING italicized text quoted from the “Twelve Concepts for NA Service” -- Seventh Concept essay

CBDM BASIC CONCEPTS

CBDM: Chosen Implementation / Techniques

(including Straw Polls, Round-robins, Discussions, etc.)

The implementation chosen should best serve the needs of the group (“membership”); it should be

chosen by the group (“membership”): members tend to honor the process since they where the ones

who chose it in the first place. Implementations may include a generally acceptable suite of tools used

by the Facilitator such as:

Straw Polls

"A straw poll or straw vote is a vote with nonbinding results. Straw polls provide important interactive

dialogue among movements within large groups, reflecting trends like organization and motivation. ...”

Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_poll

Round-robins

"A round robin ... where each person in turn gets to share their feelings about ... decisions ... gives

everyone a chance to speak one more time. �” from The Makings of a Good Meeting (by Kevin Wolf):

http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/kjwolf/facilitate/manual.rtf

When the room is “divided, this can be effective so long

as that when a compromise is presented, there is a call for

consensus (rather than delaying the process to manipulate it).

CBDM BASIC CONCEPTS

CBDM: Chosen Implementation / Techniques, continued

The Lay-Aside

This is typically used when more research is required or when discussion

of a non-critical idea is not tending toward consensus ( “divided” room).

Perhaps time spent in small discussion groups or in-between meetings

may lend further discussion toward consensus.

“[A] possibility is to lay aside the issue for another time. Although this alternative may create some

difficulties, the world will probably continue to turn with or without a decision being made right now.

The need to make a decision promptly is often not as important as the need to ultimately come to unity

around a decision that has been well crafted, taking the time it needs to do it right.”

from Consensus Decision Making:

http:// www.casagordita.com/consensus.htm

Discussion Groups (“Work Groups” / Ad-hoc)

used when more research is required or when more discussion is required. Small groups allow more

discussion simultaneously. “Work groups” or ad-hoc’s can be organized for interested members.

Voting

If this is used, it should be a last resort. A reasonable majority such as 2/3, 3/4, etc. should be used.

Typically, this is used for critical decisions when there is a stalemate (dead-lock) with no progress.

Because voting results in “winners” and “losers”, every attempt should be made to made by the

participants and the facilitator to reach a consensus. Those using “blocks” should be consulted (i.e.,

“questioned) V

V this will be discussed next V

CBDM BASIC CONCEPTS

Stand-asides vs. Blocking

stand-aside: “I do not personally agree”:

"A common problem ... is a values clash between personal and group values. ... rather

than expecting the whole group ... to support a personal value, the person stands aside ... [personal]

values are respected by allowing the individual to stand aside. Stand asides should be noted in the

minutes ... “*

blocking: “this idea would harm the group / area / etc”:

"... if the final solution is not acceptable as being the best interest for the group, then it is

the duty of the participants to not give permission ... to move forward ... If the modification process is

done well, blocking is almost never used. The facilitator should clarify ... how the group interests is not

being served ...

"... blocking is done for the best interests of the group, not ... personal likes and dislikes.”*

*PRECEEDING italicized text quoted from: Basics of Consensus (by Rob Sandelin) — © Consensus Works!


If you object personally to an idea but

do not believe that the idea would harm the group,

please give your consent by using the “stand-aside”.

If you strongly believe that an idea would harm the group,

indicate your dissent by using the “block” F carefully.

CBDM FACILITATION

In accord with the “win-win” concept of CBDM, when addressing “blockers”, the Facilitator may ask:

“The body has stated its Group Conscience; can you state the reasons for your dissent ?”

or

“Can you accept the will of this body or will you state the reasons for your dissent ?”

rather than

“Will you concede to the will of the body ?”


MYTH / RUMOR: Anyone can be a facilitator.

FACT: There are well-known leadership qualities for an effective facilitator.

“The facilitator is the servant of the group, not its leader. It is his/her job to draw out and focus the best

thinking of the group, not to use his/her position to impose or elevate his/her own.

“... the facilitator should strive to remain as neutral as possible �

“A good facilitator needs to be patient, intuitive, articulate, able to think on

his/her feet, and have a sense of humor. He/she should always be on the

lookout for things that are missing: a person who wants to speak but has been

too shy, an idea that was badly articulated or dismissed too quickly but has

potential, or anything happening on the nonverbal level that might be

significant. The facilitator should periodically state and restate the ideas on the

table, the elements that have been agreed on, and the questions still being

decided. ...”

PRECEEDING italicized text quoted from:

“Consensus Decision Making” (http://www.casagordita.com/consensus.htm)

CBDM FACILITATION


A GOOD Facilitator:

• remains neutral: has no opinion

• uphold whatever CBDM process has been implemented

(does not “improvise”)

• keep the discussion focused / on point by avoiding “tangents”

• restate idea or compromise to ensure focus, for example:

“So, if I understand you correctly, your idea is ...” or “Are there any questions about the idea of ...”)

• uses standard / accepted parlance of CBDM

for example:

"Is there any objection to ...“ or “Can we live with ...”

rather than: “Is this really something we want ?”

• calls for consensus when idea / compromise is presented

• uses standard / accepted tools of CBDM

(e.g., “straw polls”, round-robins, workgroups, etc.)

Leadership Qualities, continued

A GREAT FACILITATOR:

• keeps things moving (avoiding repetition, etc.)

• watches for 3rd party (non-group) discussions

• ensures everyone understands / allows for questions

• ensures all members are focused and avoiding distractions

• seeks "lone voice" / welcomes all input

• has a sense of humor preventing boredom

• uses “brainstorming” as an additional tool:

one good idea leads to another good idea creativity has no limits

"no" and "can't" do not exist be a part of ... participate

think first / think fast -- analyze later no judging / no criticizing

Facilitation Ground Rules (Do’s / Don’ts)

• do NOT submit ideas

• remain neutral – if you can’t, step-down temporarily

• do NOT improvise – be familiar with CBDM and the chosen implementation

• do NOT manipulate a decision / discussion

• exemplify application of spiritual principles

• good knowledge of the Twelve Traditions and Twelve Concepts [of Service]

• be familiar with ideas (in advance, if possible)

FACILITATION

Summary / Open Forum

SUMMARY -- the "take-away", continued

• Participants must have a common bond

There must not be an adversarial relationship amongst the participants.

Tradition 1 (Common Welfare / Unity)

• There is no one (1) “right” way to implement CBDM

The implementation chosen should best suit the needs of the group.

Implementation can eliminate divisiveness (everyone agrees on it)

• Effective leadership – select a consistently GREAT facilitator

CBDM without good facilitation is like ... an orchestra without a good conductor

Facilitator makes use of a suite of tools within the bounds of the chosen implementation

• Understand CBDM in general; accept / understand chosen implementation

• Participate !! – every voice matters

• Exercise spiritual principles: especially open-mindedness and humility

“... it is often the lone voice, offering new information or

a unique perspective on things, that saves us from hasty

or misinformed decisions. In Narcotics Anonymous, we are

encouraged to respect that lone voice, to protect it, even to

seek it out, for without it our service decisions would

undoubtedly suffer.” “Twelve Concepts for NA Service” – Ninth Concept essay

? What have I learned today ?

? What can I do with this information ?

Feedback appreciated – Feedback Form

Open Forum -- Comments, Questions

(as time allows)

Honor /support whichever CBDM model is chosen !!

Use the “stand-aside” rather than the “block” if you personally disagree !!

Most importantly, follow spiritual principles and participate !!

Sample Implementation Chartsincluded in the workshop handout, pages 16 - 18 of 20

Internet Links (“URL’s”) – “WebRefs”Consensus-based Decision-making on the World-wide Web (Internet)

included in the workshop handout, pages 19 & 20 of 20

• Town East Group (proposed – not yet adopted)

• Sacramento ASC (2008) CBD (extract)

• Lone Star Region of NA (may undergo revision)

• Non-NA References

• NA References

CConsensusonsensus--BBased ased DDecisionecision--MMakingaking

CBDM WorkshopCBDM Workshop

Narcotics AnonymousNarcotics Anonymous

Dallas Area Service ConferenceDallas Area Service Conference

December 2010December 2010

PowerPointPresentation (Summary of Handout). · PDF fileDEFINITION – facilitate • ... [of Order] (“Parliamentary Procedure”) Roberts Rules – only one (1) right ........

Documents