note on anarchism

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980318.1425 EDT)]

I received the following comment:

The only thing which seemed lacking, in the context of Rick Marken's
objection, is greater clarity in stating that some anarchist views are by no
means opposed to coercion per se, they simply oppose *authorized* coercion.
Bakuninist revolutionaries, for example, do not reject coercion. Coercion
is expected to be a major component in successful revolutionary activity.
But it is never to be official, never a matter of authorization, never
mediated by bureaucracy, etc. This was implicit in what you wrote, but
probably too subtle for most readers.

I evidently didn't keep a copy of my post on anarchism so I can't quote
where I tried to say this, but the central point is consensual leadership
rather than leadership that is appointed, decreed, legislated, inherited,
etc. As to the extent to which coercive means are OK for changing the way
things are done, "some anarchist views" is the right way to say it, for
anarchist views cover the gamut. At one extreme, your means are an instance
of the ends you're driving at regardless of the ends you say you're driving
at. At the other extreme bombs are required to get people off the dime. The
stereotype of the bomb-throwing anarchist (from the last turn of the
century) was due to a small minority of individuals making that autonomous
choice about means.

There is something of anarchism in Quakerism. Individuals turn for
leadership to a corporate "sense of the meeting" that emerges in a process
of listening to the "leadings" of individuals who feel moved to express
them. Rather than by consensus, which involves compromise, individuals
expect to find their understanding deepening and their views changing in
the course of "reaching unity." If some are adamant in differing views they
may "stand aside," otherwise the Meeting cannot proceed in the matter and
will take it up again when next they meet. This can take time. I am told
that the sign language gesture for Quakerism is lacing your fingers and
twiddling your thumbs.

  Bruce Nevin

[KENNETH_J_KITZKE1]

[From Kenny Kitzke 980518.2020EDT)]

[From Bruce Nevin (980318.1425 EDT)]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about anarchism as it relates to coercion.

but the central point is consensual leadership rather than leadership that

is appointed, decreed, legislated, inherited, etc.

In my business, I help groups govern themselves using consensual decision
making theory and methods. This is so even when there is a decreed,
authoritative leader, like a CEO with their staff.

I am aware of one such leader who never, and I mean NEVER, makes a decision
about what a staff member should do. I showed a video about a division
manager (called MacGregor) at a CSG conference in Durango a few years ago.

Consensus is far superior to authoritative or participative decision
making. It almost always produces extraordinary results even with the very
same people on the team.

There is one statement about consensus with which I would take issue.

There is something of anarchism in Quakerism. Individuals turn for

leadership to a corporate "sense of the meeting" that emerges in a process
of listening to the "leadings" of individuals who feel moved to express
them. Rather than by consensus, which involves compromise, individuals
expect to find their understanding deepening and their views changing in
the course of "reaching unity." If some are adamant in differing views they
may "stand aside," otherwise the Meeting cannot proceed in the matter and
will take it up again when next they meet. This can take time. I am told
that the sign language gesture for Quakerism is lacing your fingers and
twiddling your thumbs.

Reaching consensus does not necessarily involve compromise. In fact,
compromising your position to placate another person in the group, or the
entire group, will destroy much of the value of true consensus decision
making over authoritative, democratic or participative decision making.

Reaching decisions by consensus can take more time than "I want you to
decide to either do it this way or that way, or I'll force you to suffer
the consequences of not agreeing with my ways."

However, reaching decisions by consensus is a process. And, as people
learn how it works, learn some methods and use they, they get pretty
proficient. Plus, it always takes less time to successfully impliment a
consensus decision. So, my experience is that overall, consensus decision
making actually saves time for executives.

individuals expect to find their understanding deepening and their views

changing in the course of "reaching unity." If some are adamant in
differing views they may "stand aside," otherwise the Meeting cannot
proceed in the matter and will take it up again when next they meet.

This is precisely how I facilitate a President's Quality Council at my
clients. There is a form of coercion present. The group cannot move ahead
until all accept the group's decision. Like some of Tim Carey's views
about students and RTP, it does not feel like coercion when you agree with
the rule and its consequences. By having a veto type right over others
ideas, you have to give them that right (power) to exert force over your
idea.

There are students who don't want to play RTP. To them it will be
perceived as coercive. Some executives don't want to play consensus (where
everyone is equal, there is no superior authority on the choices of the
group). They refuse to go along with a consensus format often fearing this
touchy-feeley stuff will diminish their authority to tell people what they
want them to do.

Of course, that is what it does! And, PCT tells us why consensus can and
does work better for interaction and decision making without escalating
conflict between autonomous control system human beings.

I just wanted to comment; now I wrote a lesson. If you are familiar with
consensus decision making, I'd enjoy some of your experiences.

Best regards,

Kenny

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (980319.1223 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke 980518.2020EDT)]--

Thanks for your perspective. I applaud your work. It sounds wonderful.

I think you would agree that consensus can involve quid pro quo and
compromise. Indeed, all you are saying is that it "does not necessarily
involve compromise." I agree. The kind of consensus process that you
describe is very close to the Quaker process of finding unity. The
distinction is between different forms of consensus process. Quakers often
refer to their process as consensus. When they do make the distinction, the
purpose is to clarify exactly the points that you have articulated. (The
main additional difference in Quaker process is the religious beliefs and
principles and the experience of turning to the spirit as an informative
presence in the gathered meeting.)

If you are familiar with
consensus decision making, I'd enjoy some of your experiences.

I was Clerk of a meeting for a couple of years, and Recording Clerk for 5
or 6 more years after that. I don't have any particular experiences about
bringing people to appreciate and learn to practice this way of making
corporate decisions; by the time people attend business meetings ("meeting
for worship for the conduct of business") they know how it's done, and at
the very least they have a prior commitment to learning and engaging in
Friends' practices. Since we have moved back to Martha's Vineyard we have
not been active in a meeting.

However, reaching decisions by consensus is a process. And, as people
learn how it works, learn some methods and use they, they get pretty
proficient. Plus, it always takes less time to successfully impliment a
consensus decision. So, my experience is that overall, consensus decision
making actually saves time for executives.

An attribute of decision making in Japan is that a great many participate
in reviewing the issues and proposed solutions. Americans have been puzzled
to give the same dog-and-pony show again and again to different groups,
many of whom seem peripheral or bit players. Each group seems to come to an
agreement, yet no agreement is reached. Then, suddenly, the decision is
passed down from above, following the strict hierarchy of their society.
But there are no surprises in this, everyone involved is familiar with the
issues and would have predicted that outcome, or at least understand the
basis for it even if parochially they might have preferred another outcome.
Drucker's discussion in _Mangement: Tasks, responsibilities, practices_ is
instructive.

"The Japanese process is focused on understanding the problem. The desired
end result is action and behavior on the part of people. This almost
guarantees that all the alternatives will be considered. It rivets
management attention to essentials. It does not permit commitment until
management has decided what the decision is all about. Japanese managers
may come up with the wrong answer to the problem (as was the decision to go
to war against the United States in 1941), but they rarely come up with the
right answer to the wrong problem. And that, as all decision-makers learn,
is the most dangerous course, the irretrievably wrong decision.

"Above all, their system forces the Japanese to make big decisions. It is
much too cumbersome to be put to work on minor mattewrs. It takes far too
many people far too long to be wasted on anything but truly important
matters leading to real changes in policies and behavior. Small decisions,
even when obviously needed, are very often not being made at all in Japan
for that reason." (p. 469)

Still, and as Drucker implies earlier, this is not consensus decision
making as we are discussing it. In part it is like building constituencies
of support; mostly, it is understanding what the problem is; but all of
this is in support of what is ultimately an executive decision. A lot of
management consultant work involves introducing some attributes of
consensus process into hierarchical organizations for these kinds of
purposes. Actual consensus process is not harnessed to the executive wagon;
it does the harnessing, and it is all the participants who are engaged.

  Bruce Nevin