Group Decision-making
We’re currently trialing a new consent-based and integrative decision-making system. . Within the community decisions are taken by the people who are concerned and impacted by them; they consult with others who have expertise and resources to implement the decisions. We believe that shared purpose and values, transparency, trust and work on our character and consciousness are keys to sustainable distributive decision-making.. When conflicts arise, we address both structural limitations and the interpersonal patterns playing out.
“Humanity needs to develop the capacity for democracy and this requires the transformation of the inner world. The adoption of grassroots democracy is appropriate when all participants are able to take on responsibility for the group. This requires people that follow their conscience and are ready to place the common interest above their own.”
“There is rarely a way where everyone will get their preference. There is almost always a way where everyone can be within willingness. Cultivating willingness means hearing everyone and supporting everyone in hearing others and thereby opening to caring for their concerns. (…) Stretching into integration comes from expanding the range of needs being attended to and the faith that solutions that work for all are possible. (…) As I see it, mutual influencing is the deepest layer at which integration happens.”
MIKI KASHTAN
Concept
The organizational and governance structures in our community are constantly evolving .
For the last 10-15 years we have had a system of councils at various levels, with departments making decisions in their own fields, and a carrier circle made up of project leaders responsible for holding the overview and coordination, as well as an organizing team for the whole community. In recent years, as our community grew in size and complexity, these structures no longer served the making of complex decisions in ways that allowed for both trust and efficiency.
Between 2021 and 2023, after a phase of structural disintegration, we underwent a consolidation process. Inspired by the Nonviolent Global Liberation collective, we designed a new decision-making structure, which we’re currently running as a trial for 2 years. We’re aiming to decentralize power as much as possible while strengthening togetherness and trust. Our current approach is based on the following premises:
- Both traditional top-down and alternative consensus-based decision-making structures rely on a coercive paradigm – that is predict, command and control. As Miki Kashtan says, “We will inherit this conditioning unless we consciously design new systems.” Aiming to establish a functional alternative to both, the structures we build are directed towards enabling choice, togetherness and flow.
- Decisions are best made as closely as possible to where the need exists – by the people who are concerned and impacted, and those with expertise and resources to implement them.
- In a decentralized governance system, the functions previously held by central control are replaced by collectively shared purpose and agreements. Gaining clarity of purpose is key, as this orients our decisions and proposals in a shared direction. Purpose is the part of our vision which is specifically ours to do; the place where our passion overlaps with what’s needed and with what we’re able to do.
How We Make Decisions
Based on their willingness and capacity, community members self-organize to develop proposals to meet needs that arise. This happens in existing teams and departments. People also form working groups, open to anyone’s participation, when new needs emerge, especially when facing particularly complex and impactful decisions, or those that navigate areas of low-trust.
We then process, refine and vote on proposals through a consent-based group decision-making process, which works with integration rather than majority votes. In consent-based group decision-making, everyone has the chance to offer their feedback, including to veto a proposal under certain conditions – in our case, if people believe the proposal is contrary to our purpose or may create harm. At the same time, we’re encouraging those proposing and those objecting to integrate their needs to create a proposal that works for all.
These decision-making processes take place among those concerned. Decisions that impact only the people within a particular sub-group of the community are made by them. For decisions that significantly impact others beyond that group, those people are encouraged to participate; decisions are made by those who decide to involve themselves. Only those decisions that impact everyone or many of the community in significant ways are made in a monthly general assembly.
Still, people face decisions which they don’t know how to make – for example, because they’re unable to bridge divergences, deal with conflicts or because they’re unsure who to involve. In these cases community members can approach our decision support team, which offers guidance based on the practices and principles of integrative decision-making through coaching, group facilitation and skill sharing.
To keep learning and evolving our governance structures, we’re running a feedback system which allows community members to share how they’ve been impacted by decisions. We can thereby bring awareness to the places where we’re not yet aligned with our purpose and values, where our agreements (especially regarding decision-making) need to be refined and to other things that we need to address.
Dealing with Conflict
When conflicts arise while making decisions, we first try to understand what might cause them and then tackle the underlying issues. To address conflict is to learn from it, not necessarily to immediately solve it.
We find that many conflicts result from structural limitations such as barriers to participation for some people, divergences about our shared priorities or values or a lack of capacity. We try to make these limitations visible through our feedback system and to create processes to address and mitigate them.
Yet we also find that many other conflicts aren’t about the subject itself but about hidden emotional patterns, ego interests and interpersonal conflicts attached to them. This is why we do consciousness and character work, through processes like Forum, to disentangle the psychological issues from the topic and to attend to them. In some cases this resolves the conflict. In other cases we realise there still is genuine disagreement about the subject. We try to integrate the divergences as much as we can and when we can’t integrate, we compromise.
This work sometimes prolongs our decision-making process in the short term, but it’s key for building and maintaining trust within the community. Without trust decisions can’t be implemented or kept up on the longer term. In a system of trust, you can’t impose decisions that aren’t supported by the community.
Examples of Group Decision-Making
Sabine Lichtenfels had a vision to build the Aula as an auditorium for our international peace training. She shared this vision and the picture became clearer and got resonance through differing opinions being shared about it in councils and the general assembly. So this was a vision that was called in and manifested, rather than a decision made by consensus.
This process was mirrored when building Lake 1. Inspired by the clear impetus of ecological visionary Sepp Holzer, our ecology team proposed to radically transform our landscape and build a massive water retention space between the Cultural Center, Guest House and Aula. Though most people couldn’t imagine the lake would ever receive enough rainwater to fill it, after intense debate, the community’s trust in our ecologists’ professional competence and the power of strong vision generated the confidence to create the Water Retention Landscape. (In the end they were proven right.)
Another interesting example was the process of defining the shared purpose for a community working process involving about 50 people. A working group presented an initial proposal which they refined after hearing questions, feedback and concerns from the group. We used consent-based decision-making to surface different levels of agreements, concerns and vetoes. After several iterations we made a decision but this process achieved more than just a decision. While we sat for many hours and talked about different possibilities we rediscovered our own dream and saw that others were dreaming it too. In orienting towards shared purpose we also touched places where we lost faith and as we shared about this, we reawakened a sense of possibility through community. It led to a big group co-owning and holding clarity of our shared purpose – which is crucial to the vitality of our community.
Results and Practices
- Decisions in community aren’t made in private. To maintain a community of trust, we orient towards truth, mutual support and shared responsibility, share our daily lives and let each other’s feedback inform our decisions.
- Trust is at the heart of the new paradigm in group decision-making. For the group to make decisions together, they need to engage in building trust and addressing the interpersonal dynamics and historic trauma that come up in the process. This might slow down the decision-making in the short run, but the decisions that follow are usually more sustainable in the longer run.
- We focus on building our individual natural authority by speaking our truth and becoming conscious of the decisions we want to make so that we don’t misuse this power unconsciously.
- The more people collaborate for a common purpose, the more coherence a group can build. To be able to effectively make decisions on the details, we need to share a strong overall vision, purpose and values. When we unite in this higher orientation, we have great creative and transformative potential.
- An essential aspect of global healing is moving from isolated to collaborative decisions and from “either-or” to integration, where we put ourselves into service for the common goal for the benefit of all.