Welcome to Chris…

Hey all,

This post is mainly to welcome Chris to our blog!  In addendum to the consensus decision-making model we shared in class, the “Shared Path” booklet below documents our exploration of direct democracy via the practice of democratic decision making and participatory models for diverse groups and collectives.  Our collection of posts is a product of a participatory research process that includes personal experiences, individual investigations, and proposals for our presentation. In turn, these contributions inspired debates and highlighted important challenges and prospects for the practice of direct democracy, at least at the local level . The research and discussion of this topic also permitted us to explore various areas of popular education, including dialogue, facilitation and alternative forms of communication. Although the digital interaction presented in our Shared Path project is ongoing and remains inconclusive, cumulatively it represents the inception and growth of our shared voice regarding direct democracy and its processes.

Please read what you can. The blog is alive and will continue to grow with time so we don’t expect you to keep up with all of it.

Thank you for the wonderful class, and for the challenge and the gift of this group work. Our work together has been stimulating and enjoyable, especially when there weren’t many other academic distractions.

Shared Path – Consensus Decision Making Handbook::

When the time is right…

Hello my dear shared voice colleagues!!! After our thwarted work session on Thursday at the Thai restaurant I went home and tried to take a short nap before starting to work on my essays. The innocent nap nonetheless turned into a full-fledged sleep and I woke up at 10 am the next day. The incident made me think about how our physical or mental states affect group dynamics, especially group decision-making. My lack of productivity during the work session was a consequence of exhaustion and incapacity to intellectualize after a full day of classes. I think most of you also felt a bit distracted. I guess this is where the role of the “vibe watcher” is important. He/ she is expected to bring attention to any tension during the discussion and allow the group to rectify the problem by addressing it. However, what happens when there is a collective inertia due to internal  or external conditions? Is there a point where certain psychological tactics or facilitating strategies prove futile in challenging collective counterproductive moods?

For instance, many people in FES feel that the window of opportunity to discuss or reconcile ourselves with the strike has passed. Personally, I feel that any dialogue or group discussion on the issue would be challenged by a growing apathy amongst the student body towards the incident. It appears anti-climactic during a time when people just want to “move on.”

What do we do in these situations? Abort? Postpone? If we held our work-session the next day, would we have been more creative?  productive? efficient? All these questions suggest that timing is an important consideration in group activities whether it be popular education or consensus decision-making. Sometimes not even the most talented facilitator can save the moment. At that point, we should learn from Cubans how to adapt the word “manana” (tomorrow). Basically, what doesn’t get done today, will get done manana.

ciao

The Conversation Continues

Hi all, I’m going to try and post the video of tonight’s conversation (only Natalie and Lindsay talking unfortunately). I don’t know about that Thai restaurant…they treated us like grad students or something. I’ve enjoyed working on this idea of building consensus. Many times I have thought the politics of situations in which, by proxy, we give others the chance to work through ideas we care about and are in our interest; and how I could untie my self from this process of giving way to social agreements, situations of supposed dialogue ( Robert’s Rules of Order anyone?)  We’ve covered some ground in the field of taking a look at different processes of building consensus. I think I’ll be seeing this as something important through this degree and forward after-that. Strange to think that these ideas are out there and may not be used to their maximum use. 

I wanted to post one more document, which has many consensus building models. Policy Impact Tools Handbook . Please take a look at this comprehensive book of change-making info.

Thanks! 

The link below takes you to YouTube. 

one more thing…

sorry just have a quick minute…reading jo’s post reminded me of an article “effective communication and decision-making in diverse groups” that i read a few years ago. i’m not sure if we’ve come across it as a group yet but here it is… http://www.earthsummit2002.org/msp/book/chap5.pdf . it’s a bit of a read, but interesting. in terms of effective decision-making…this is what i was reminded of…just some food for thought…

“Dialogue practitioner Hare (1982) has produced a set of guidelines for the consensus method, based on Quaker and Gandhian principles and results from laboratory experiments that have demonstrated the advantages of consensus over majority votes:

1 Participants are urged to seek a solution that incorporates all viewpoints.
2 Participants must argue on a logical basis, giving their own opinion while seeking out differences.
3 Participants are asked to address the group as a whole, while showing concern for each point of view, rather than confronting and criticizing individuals.
4 A group coordinator is useful to help formulate consensus.
5 It is essential not to press for agreement, but to hold more meetings if necessary and to share responsibility in the group for the implementation of the consensus (Hare, 1982).

Effective leadership can also be crucial for achieving consensus. Maier (1970) suggests a list of nine principles for the discussion leader to take into account:

1 Success in problem-solving requires that effort be directed toward overcoming surmountable obstacles.
2 Available facts should be used even when they are inadequate.
3 The starting point of a problem is richest in solution possibilities.
4 Problem-mindedness should be increased while solution-mindedness is delayed.
5 Disagreement can either lead to hard feelings or to innovation, depending on the discussion leadership.
6 The ‘idea-getting’ process should be separated from the ‘idea-evaluation’ process because the latter inhibits the former.
7 Choice-situations should be turned into problem-situations (a choice between two alternatives directs the energy towards making a choice and thus detracts from the search for additional/innovative alternatives).
8 Problem situations should be turned into choice situations. (Problem situations tend to block behaviour – the discovery of the first better and innovative solutions. Decision-making requires both choice behaviour and problem-solving behaviour. It is desirable to capitalize on the differences and thereby upgrade each.)
9 Solutions suggested by the leader are improperly evaluated and tend either to be accepted or rejected.

Seibold (1999) describes a range of procedures that helps groups to agree. He lists six rules for a non-competitive method of reaching a group decision in which all members eventually agree to agree, notwithstanding individual preferences:

1 Avoid arguing for favourite proposals.
2 Avoid using ‘against-them’ statements.
3 Avoid agreeing just to avoid conflict.
4 Reject specific decision rules.
5 View differences as helpful.
6 View initial agreements as premature and suspect.” 

 

How to become a leader and empower people

In our discussion on the processes and techniques of collective decision-making I would like to dedicate this post to the role of leadership, which is usually assumed by a facilitator in various group activities i.e. conflict resolution, visioning exercises etc.  I found it interesting how Starhawk’s model of horizontal organizing allows ambitious and skilled individuals to assume a protagonist role in the practice of direct democracy via the concept of “empowered leadership.” The article demonstrates that the concept is different from that found in hierarchical groups because it is founded on power among rather than – over.  In other words, empowered leaders in the context of direct democracy draw their power from respect, influence, and prestige rather than obedience, and aim to distribute power amongst the group through the dissemination of information, skill sharing, and the facilitation of communication as well as networking.

Other prescriptive steps for practicing empowering leadership include:

• give others a chance to learn
• step back and silently cheer i.e. energetic support and respectful attention
• do not impose your agenda
• do no lecture
• do not hoard information

Considering that our presentation requires us to assume what Starhawk termed as “process leadership” it would be interesting to discuss some of the  communication strategies we can apply to help the group find effective ways to make decisions and share skills. The points above provide us with some guidance.

This discussion on communication techniques  further unravels the issue highlighted by Avi in regards to using the master’s tools to mend/break the machine, or more specifically, The Dale Carnegie course on How to Win Friends and Influence People.

I believe that when making a decision in adopting the “master’s tools,” we must ensure that they remain compatible to the spirit or objective of the transformative mission. Starhawk convincingly argues that the practice of direct democracy  due to its emphasis on information sharing, dialogue and consensus decision-making requires a shift in organizational modes and our way of thinking, which includes a new conceptual framework for “empowering leadership.” In my opinion, any adaptation from corporate techniques needs to uphold and sustain these standards.

So, let’s take a look at Carnegie’s self-help guide to evaluate if and what skills we can learn and adapt. Do we see any (in) compatibilities with Starhawk’s framework of empowered leadership?  What are the foundational values guiding Carnegie’s model for leadership?

Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_friends)

1. Begin with praise and honest appreciation.
2. Call attention to other people’s mistakes indirectly.
3. Talk about your own mistakes first.
4. Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.
5. Let the other person save face.
6. Praise every improvement.
7. Give them a fine reputation to live up to.
8. Encourage them by making their faults seem easy to correct.
9. Make the other person happy about doing what you suggest.

That is all for now my shared voice friends. I am sorry for not posting as per our schedule but I have been sick with the flu. Can’t wait to see everyone on Thursday, miss you all dearly.

Jo

hi all…

On the topic of stakeholders… I agree with Natalie. In my experience, the discrepancies between the relative power of “stakeholders” often makes the term meaningless. In my work up north, those parties who had a clearly financial interest at stake, were the ones who drove decision-making. Although intrinsic, spiritual and cultural values were acknowledged, they held little weight when words were put into action. (“We consulted with ALL of the stakeholders!!” wink wink…What constitutes “stakeholder consultation” anyway?),

I agree that assigning a value to stakeholder investment is a challenge and my sense is that simply because relative amounts of money can be quantified…they carry to most influence. How could we get around this? As Natalie suggests..how can we invite others to see our investment in an issue as equal to their own?

On the topic of the masters tools…This is tricky because the majority of my experience is just that…using corporate tools to somehow carve out something that encourages social change. As Natalie says, this is especially true when it comes to funding. I’m sure we have all grappled with the idea of “taking the devil’s money to do good work…” I can relate to Natalie in that most of the projects and programs I have been involved with wouldn’t exist without government funding…

Also…I apologize for my last post…since it really didn’t connect with the “dots” of previous posts…I only had a minute and I had meant to come back to it…I guess I was just thinking out loud about inclusiveness in the community consensus process and how it is hard enough for people who are mobilized and active to effect change and push community action projects forward…but what about those who physically can’t participate in the process? Given that generally people are becoming increasingly disconnected from their own neighbourhoods…how can we justly and effectively represent the interests of neighbours that we don’t know?

Ok, I got to get back to work…See you Thursday! Yay!

My three cents

Shared voice friends, here is my layer. Sorry I was a bit late with my declared deadline for posting. I”ll try to organize all the thoughts your recent posts stirred up.

I’d like to discuss:

1. stakeholders
2. using the master’s tools to break (or mend) the masters machine…or…the  “take the money and run” question
3. the point of dialogue – what’s it worth
4. meeting the neighbors – where is my communitY?

1. So I’ll start where Avi finished, bringing up the word “stakeholder”. Dictionary.com says it means these things:

1) the holder of the stakes of a wager.

2) a person or group that has an investment, share, or interest in something, as a business or industry.

3) Law. a person holding money or property to which two or more persons make rival claims.

My only experience with the world has been within the environmental movement, when organizations use it to describe all the parties who have investment or value in a certain place or resource.  So, out of ease I’ll use a familiar example for me, a forest.  You have environmental groups that want to protect forest landscapes, species, biodiversity, etc. You have companies and corporations that rely on forest products to make money & employ workers. You have First Nations people who claim ownership of the land or rely on it for survival or to maintain their cultural way of life.  You have the provincial or federal government that legally owns the land and leases it out to companies or to another “stakeholder” or permanently protects it.  You have the public, who technically give the government authority as stewards of the land.

So these groups are all stakeholders.  Which I guess makes sense, given the above definition.  But I also think, that within these “stakeholder” relationships, there are definitely unequal distributions of power.  All stakeholders do not have the same voice or authority or possibility to make decisions.

I wouldn’t say I don’t like the word stakeholder, but I do think the word has become a formal cliche – just to make it sound like everybody has a shared goal, interest or investment.  This is where I think using the word becomes problematic, because it is nearly impossible to assign value to some stakeholders claims – and there are definately inequalities in distribution.  And there is not a very clear or fair way for it to be determined whose interested should be valued over others.  It is like the issues of Genetic Engineered food contaminating organic food – different farmers are different stakeholders, but GE farmers’ interests are given more value and actually impede the organic farmer’s ability to hold stake in the commonalities they share.

2. using the master’s tools to break (or mend) the masters machine…or…the  “take the money and run” question

Well Avi brought this concept up in his last post. About using corporate structure or communication tools (which work well in the private sector) in other group processes.  We also discussed at my house the idea of using corporate or government funding, as just a means to do more radical projects (and whether this jeopardizes your politics or your position).

Using corporate techniques or operations to get our jobs done in social change. I feel like a lot of larger or international non-governmental groups do this.  And I think that they play a role in the persuading public opinion, really influencing change in the marketplace (because they are able to really mess with big corporate giants – they are speaking the same language).  But I think when groups start using these tools, they are fundamentally going to be missing out on real social change.  By getting that big and “corporatized”, it become very difficult to do things radically, from the bottom up or to have dialogue. ie. I know that How to Win Friends and Influence People might have helpful tactics for getting politicians to take you seriously, or get what you want. But it seems like this approach might not embrace the principles of popular education – like inspiring reclamation, honest dialogue and crticial thought. It sounds like a tactic to just get ahead? Maybe I’m wrong.

I guess my point is, I see the use of using the “masters tools”.  It might be the only way to topple them over. But, the danger is that we end up becoming just like them, and not building an alternative or more just world. We end up playing the same game.

The same goes for this funding question I guess. If by getting government or corporate funding will change an organizations or collective’s goals, politics, ethics, etc.  I am torn about how I feel about this. I worked for an organization that was very radical in projects we implemented, but we received funding from a government body.  A lot of our projects critiqued policies of that government, yet, we relied heavily on funds from it.  Some people thought this was a conflict of interest, and jeopardized our reputation as activists.  Others felt that government money is public money, so we were entitled to use it for good and not evil.  Ha!  Well, the debate continues but the reality is the work we did probably could not have continued on the same level (if at all) without those government funds.

I haven’t figured out the funding mechanisms from Canadian government yet and how or if the NGO world relies on it. But I have noticed the prevlance, even within Environmental Studies, the amount of “progressive programs” sponsored by corporations.

Just recently there was a comment on the MES-alt listerv critiquing postings on the listserv for internship opportunities in a Shell-sponsored conservation project.  These types of tactics are used all the time by private firms, something they can brag about in their annual reports and use to show that they really do strive to address “stakeholders” interests. I really don’t buy it.  If not in these types of initatives – - where does the change start?? Is it realistic to see drastic or radical change in anything over night?

Wow…ok, well, this has gone on possibly way too long already. SORRY! I’ll come back to my other points next time. This is probably enough to digest for now.  See you THURSDAY! I can hardly believe it. natalie.

sorry to have missed out…

Hi everyone. So sad to have missed an engaging session…instead, I used my Sunday to reflect on our reliance on municipal infrastructure, community relationships and coal.

 

It is interesting, when the power came back on — after we had all vented about freezing apartments and reflected on how grateful we were to have only had to deal with a temporary blip in our usual comfy lifestyles — much of the conversation at the dog park centered around how little we actually knew about our neighbours. During the power outage a woman on CBC remarked that she had wanted to go around and check in on the “little old grannies” in her neighbourhood to see if they were warm enough but it occurred to her, that she didn’t know who any of the “little old grannies” in her neighbourhood were. I consider myself to be living in a relatively “tight” community (as far as Toronto standards go) and I do engage in activities in my ‘hood but I could only think of a handful of people to check in on.  I hate feeling that disconnected – I’ve moved around my whole life and I’ve got to work on it.

 

With regards to Avi’s comments about ZAPS and MAPS. I love that distinction and plan to use in my work. What a simple way to convey scope and prioritize when planning community action projects. I also really dig the DEPAVE initiative and Dignity Village on The City Repair Project website that Avi shared. Amazing work.

 

Have a good night everyone. LB.

First post of 2009

Hi all,

Great meeting yesterday. Lindsey, I really hope your water-main problem has been fixed. It was great talking again about the ideas brewing in our collective heads. One of the points I wanted to talk a little more about today is what we were talking about regarding how people need to achieve things to keep them focused and interested. I mentioned the idea of MAPS and ZAPS, and I’m sure it sounded a little far-out. I’ve posted the two terms in more detail below. They are excerpted from a document produced by Lisa Helps for the Fernwood Neighborhood Resource Group in my hood back in BC. I can send you the document to read if you interested in reading a bit more in this line of thinking. It is worth noting that these ideas come from an urban planner named Mark Lakeman based in Portland, Oregon. His site is worth checking out, it is here.

What is a Zap? A Zap is a transformative project that can be organized in a week or less, completed in one day or less, with a group of 5 people or less, for $500 or less. It may be permanent, or ephemeral. The purpose of a Zap is to quickly make a minor improvement to public or semi-public space that solves a design problem or is just plain beautiful and contributes to creating a whole neighbourhood. Zaps run the gamut from building a bench at the top of a steep hill where people can rest, to putting chalk drawings on a neighbourhood street, to slow speeding cars.

What is a Major Action Project (MAP)?  A MAP is a transformative project that is, in at least some dimension, larger in scale than a Zap. By definition, a MAP requires either additional time, a larger group (which may need to be formally organized), or a larger budget. It may also involve more planning depending on what it is and where it takes place (e.g. it may involve obtaining permits or permissions in advance, building partnerships with other groups, etc.).

I think it is worth tying this idea back to the earlier part of the conversation we were having, when we were talking about dialogue. The questions we were posing centered around the purpose of dialogue. What is dialogue worth? Is it about empowering people? Is it about setting and organizing attainable goals? Can you have one without the other? Is it more about giving people the skills they need for agency? Can certain forms of dialogue, like Participatory Budgeting only exist in the process of budgeting and fiscal management? The conversation was very satisfying. I think it has triggered more questions, which is good. 

What continues to fascinate me is the many connections between seemingly disparate fields of inquiry. The Dale Carnegie course, and the ideas from How to Win Friends and Influence People might have seemed like a bit of a joke, but seriously, it’s used by corporate professionals. Should the many community groups around Toronto not use the masters tools to break (or mend) the master’s machine? Communicating well, as in the case of GMO scientists who have no people skills (Natalie’s) or community groups who need to decide whether to put funds towards better sewers or better local healthcare (Joanna’s) have one thing in common; they are engaged in group processes. They both need to articulate their points and get them across, and might do so in ways that might be more successful if they were grounded in documented techniques, processes, experiences and educational materials, like ZAPS and MAPS above. 

I feel like I might be biting off more than I can chew. Either that or I’m feeling the awe of realization in that this popular education course is at once captivating and terrifying. How is it that certain ideas don’t migrate to where they would work best? Not to say that I know where the best ideas should go. Only that I feel a tension in wanting to bring ideas used by friends I have who work in different sectors of the economy to bear on certain issues, like climate change and bringing more agency to urban people and I wonder how can we break down the distinctions of jobs, neighborhoods, languages and public/private spaces for engaging. I’m going to leave it at that. I look forward to getting together again soon.

I just remembered that we had a little problem with the word stakeholder. Let’s come back to that later on.

Thanks for getting us together Natalie. We should get together again soon. Joanna I’d like to take another look at the over-the-top latin character. Could you post it to the blog? 

Cheers – Avi

Participatory Budgetting in Bradford, UK

I pasted this video in the response to Natalie’s post about the breakdown of our presentation but it did not materialize So I am trying to “embed” on this main post for everyone’s viewing pleasure. Would you call this “pseudo-participation” as defined by Prof. Skolimowski?”

“Aprendiemos haciendo” – We learn by doing.