As part of our contribution to re-establishing balance, we’ve just uploaded two new consensus decision-making guides to our Resources page. We hope there’s a suitable focus on that state of mind.

One is an abridged version of two of our most popular blog posts on the history and evolution of consensus, with the information brought together in one place. The second is an introduction and overview of what consensus is, how it works, common misconceptions, alternatives for those that can’t commit to consensus and some places to go for further information. There’s a third guide in the pipeline, aimed at facilitators of consensus.

These guides will undoubtedly evolve. Your feedback is a part of that evolution. We’d love to hear from you – what’s not clear? what’s missing? We’d also love to include more case studies of when consensus works and doesn’t, so if you have experiences to share, please get in touch.

I spent two days working with people from worker coops on the theory and practice of mediation. The first day also coincided with the UN International Year of Cooperatives.

We started by looking at and discussing what mediation means -

• what mediation is and how it differs from other dispute resolution approaches
• some understanding conflict tools – conflict mapping, PIN, impact/influence, process/content models. (PIN stands for positions, interests and needs. See the resources page for more.)
• that it’s not just the people and their issues – there are also structural and contextual issues to consider

Then we moved on to reviewing and developing some core skills…in two parts

1. state of mind – being neutral, impartial and non-judgemental…what this is like to experience…can we be totally non-judgemental (about what we think, but not about how we are understanding the dialogue)…the questions that might be good to ask to seek clarity
2. active listening – how it is different from everyday conversation…feels clunky at first, but like any skills needs to be developed…enables people to own their solutions – the problem is the parties’, not the mediators

And then a fair bit of practice…1st contact meetings…face to face mediation practice…debriefing

We also had plenty of discussions to understand scenarios and possibilities. And looked at some of the complexity of applying mediation – the need to amend confidentiality (disclose stuff where you say you’ll harm yourself or others)…the difficulty of having two roles – mediator and personnel worker…the need for a referral process (Cooperatives UK to draft, group to review)…what a mediator network might look like and how to make it so…further developmental needs.

The handouts we used are available on the resources page.

People were asked to evaluate the training too. Overall it scored 8.89 out of 10. I’ve included some comments below, but it also struck me, from the evaluation, that we need to get some more info on the kinds of disputes that happen in coops (as opposed to other workplaces) to enhance the case studies/role plays.

Some comments about what was found useful -

Structuring the process of mediation – making it less scary

Opening my eyes to the positive potential of mediation within my organisation

Charts, diagrams – very useful tools to explain the process quickly and simply

The ability to put what we were talking about into practice through role play

Some about what was less useful -

Role plays too tame. Get people to act naughty.

Each part seemed to be useful and serve its purpose, so its hard to pick the ‘least useful’ bits.

What was missing -

Nothing I can think of. More detail/practice would be useful, but I feel that as much was packed into the time available as was possible.

More information about mediation theory, but this probably wasn’t possible in the time

Rhizome’s mediation guides are available on our Resources page

How can activist groups respond? One option is to ‘call the bluff’ on repression. If one of the intentions behind surveillance is to intimidate activists into taking less action – respond with more!

Another response is to plan and prepare to protect the security of your group and its members. Depending on how public your group is, and the kind of activities it engages in, will determine how much of a priority you make security.

Remember, paranoia is never a useful response!

“Unfounded paranoia is not helpful to anyone but your enemies. Indeed, paranoia is not part of the security process; it is an unhelpful state of mind often built on emotion. Your fears need to be grounded in facts and rational consideration to be part of your security in a useful way.
Fortunately, the problem of insiders working against us is not as big as we might suppose, and those who sponsor them spread disinformation about the extent of it. It suits their purpose to keep people guessing. It is always good to remember there has been and remains a long history of successful campaigns and actions despite the informers operating inside our groups.” Infiltrators, Informers and Grasses: how, why and what to do if your group is targeted, page 2, download from ActivistSecurity.org

There’s a whole related conversation to be had about overt and covert direct actions, and which is actually more secure; open and closed groups and movements, and which are more effective. But another time! If you have thoughts on that feel, free to start the ball rolling by leaving a comment.

This was one of a series of 3 ‘think-ins’ facilitated by Jude Kelly, Artistic Director of the Southbank, to find out what women (and men) wanted to talk about, explore and debate during the 3 days of events, and how. My group was comprised of around 30 women and a couple of men of different ages, colours, nationalities, parents and not. Effort had evidently gone in to attract a diverse crowd.

The session was very well facilitated and long enough to really explore people’s ideas and thoughts without feeling rushed or cut off. What started with a focus on what we wanted to see during the event slowly turned into a sort of confessional, with each person taking a few minutes or more to share with the group an insight into gender equality personal to them. It was powerful and inspiring to listen to the stories of strangers and a group bond formed during the three hours in the room. It had such an effect that one thing we decided we wanted to see was a space during the festival for such a session where people could listen, hear and share their personal reflections and journeys.

The programme for the festival has just been emailed through to me, and is up on their website. It will be added to over the coming weeks, but already I can see a few ideas formed in our ‘think in’ have made it in. I don’t think I’ve ever participated in devising the content and form of an event that I have nothing to do with organising before, and I loved it! I thought it was a really great way to plan an event, and generate a buzz around it. It’s made me even more excited about attending what promises to be an exhilarating and inspiring 3 days of debates, discussion, music, art and feminist activism. Check it out and go along! And in the meantime think about ways to get your audiences involved before and not only during your events….

Hannah

“As a facilitator, intuition helps me assess the group processes, determine when to change its direction or my approach, guides me to helping the group move forward, leads me to ask the tough questions, gives me insight into what the group may need or how and where the group may be going. Ignoring my intuition usually results in inflexible processes and results…

When I work with individuals or groups I prepare carefully everything that is needed, but then I let it go. When I start working I am focused on the other(s), what happens to them, between them, and in relation to myself. At the same time, I am self-aware, grounded and relaxed. The interventions I make based on my intuition sometimes surprise me. Afterwards I try to understand how I came to this intervention and how effective it was…

Sometimes the gut feel is misinformed. So part of using intuition is to carefully listen for feedback after I’ve taken action, to see if I’ve done something wrong”

and a checklist for improving intuition:

• “Don’t judge, don’t assume. Be open, listen, pause and check in, reflect, be more aware of your own responses, feelings, and inner sensations.
• Be open, patient, and set aside your ego as best you can. The more you practice trusting, acting upon, and assessing the results of using your intuition, the more powerful this resource will become. But the key is trust and believing.
• Incorporate internal practices such as meditation, affirmations, surrender, and loving and trusting yourself and your inner promptings.
• Acting on your intuition often requires that you take a risk sharing something or doing something for whose purpose you don’t quite understand. This takes courage. You can get better at this by practicing releasing your need to be right, and/or give yourself permission to be wrong!
• I often ask my clients to imagine that their intuition has shape, form and texture, and then describe it in detail; what does it sound like, where do they feel it in their body; what color is it; what is the texture, temperature and tone? I encourage them to keep track of their intuitive ‘hits’, to pay attention to when and where they show up. It isn’t about proving it right or wrong, but about developing the skill of subtle perception.
• Become an intensely active listener, on all levels. Listen beyond the words. Listen to tone, notice body language patterns, degrees of engagement, listen to the buzz in the room. Pay attention to what is working for a group and what’s not. Risk going “off script” every once in a while and notice what happens. When you notice a feeling in your gut, check it out with your group or with someone your trust. Eventually, you’ll learn what feelings to respond to, and which you can ignore.”

There’s plenty more where this came from. I really appreciate this grounding of intuition in active listening. It’s obvious but not always articulated. Yet another reason to work on that listening! For me intuition is about giving myself permission to listen to my own emotional state – not something I’ve always done as a facilitator because I’ve been striving for an impartial state, which has its uses. But it’s something I’m playing with more and more and finding it surprisingly helpful, and accurate.

I’ve been involved in 2 previous co-ops, both workers’ co-ops in which the employees of the company are also its directors. Employee ownership. Very simple. Rhizome however is different. We’re a co-operative consortium – a collective of freelance trainers, facilitators and mediators who come together to do some of their work under the Rhizome banner. We’re all self-employed. We choose how involved we want to be in Rhizome, and we can be flexible about that – doing more or less as fits with the rest of our lives.

So why the co-op? What’s in it for us? What’s in it for you?

For the 7 people involved in Rhizome mutual support, and the sharing of ideas, skills, and challenges ranks high. At a recent Rhizome gathering the energy just from all being in the same room, and from getting an opportunity to share ideas, thoughts and approaches on issues that we found challenging or interesting was tangible. One person even said (and I paraphrase) that “in 20 years of facilitating I’ve never had the chance to have these conversations”.

We also get asked to do very interesting work with interesting and exciting groups of people who are making real change in the world (and in themselves). That isn’t something all facilitators can say of their work.

And of course Rhizome is also a known entity with a reputation and an ever-growing list of groups and organisations that have chosen to work with us. That brings in some paid work, so there’s some income (very modest at present) to be had. But most Rhizome folk earn the bulk of their living elsewhere, coming to Rhizome for the challenge of the work we do, and the mutual support.

For you there are equal benefits. One of the most exciting things, for me, about Rhizome is that it makes a vast array of skills and experience available to communities and activist groups and organisations. Because of our co-operative consortium structure there’s less pressure to earn 100% of your income with Rhizome, to commit 100% of your working life to Rhizome. If that pressure existed, most of the 7 of us would have to decline and take our skills elsewhere to earn our living. But as things stand people can get involved in Rhizome on their terms and thus be available to you and the groups you work with.

Being a co-op also keeps us in tune with many of the skills we support others to develop – what it means to work in a group, what it means to be doing consensus, what it means to be communicating effectively, developing empathy and trust and much more. A hierarchical structure doesn’t foster those values in the same way and we’d be more likely to lose touch. And a solo freelance career doesn’t create the opportunities for peer reflection, and to learn from co-facilitation and observation that Rhizome gives. All that means we’re better at what we do when we work with you

We also get to support each other in innovating and taking risks – both in creating a space in which it’s OK to try out new ideas, but also creating a space in which you can be pushed further than you had planned to go in your risk-taking. And trust me when I say that that means better support for you.

There are other aspects of co-operative working. One of the 7 principles of co-operation is mutual aid between co-ops. As a co-op we’re more likely to look for another co-op for any external support we need – so we’ve used Calverts Co-op for our printing, and Cooportunity to do our end of year accounting. We’re also more likely to get asked to work with another co-op. As I type Carl is training mediators drawn from co-ops across the UK for Co-operatives UK.

Personally, I find that co-ops are the only place I can flourish. They’re not without their challenges. But I hope the benefits to you and to us far outweigh the problems.

It took me back to Mark Kulansky’s accessible and popular 2006 book on nonviolence, subtitled The History of a Dangerous Idea, and a quotation from Gerard Winstanley of the Diggers, “We abhor fighting for freedom. Freedom gotten by the sword is an established bondage to some part or other of the creation. Victory that is gotten by the sword is a victory that slaves get one over another.” It’s still a very common belief that sustainable social change, equality and social justice can be established by physical force and causing suffering.  The idea of persistent negotiation and persuasion with respect for and acknowledgement of the other, the refusal to use violence as a tool, the use of Gandhi’s “truth force”  is still seen as both weak and ineffective despite much evidence to the contrary.

This evidence is now gathered in a brilliant book by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan Why Civil Resistance Works It’s not as easy a read as Kurlansky’s as it’s a substantial piece of thorough academic research but it really is worth the (for me!) struggle with statistics and tables.  The website of the International Centre for Nonviolent Conflict is also worth a look.

And, being in Belgrade, I want to find out more about Otpor, the student-led civil resistance movement that through nonviolent tactics – blockades, occupations, poster and sticker campaigns, humorous stunts – brought about the removal of Milosevic in 2000 and inspired some young Egyptians to set up a nonviolence movement for political change in 2006, the Academy of Change, which resulted in the events of Tahrir Square in spring 2011.

So have a look at this inspiring video of Srdja Popovic, one of the organisers of Otpor, who now runs the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies here, even though the statue with his “sword of peace” still stands high above the rivers in Belgrade.

Jo

ONE: Agree on the level of participation that your grassroots volunteers will have in any dialogue. You may need to dialogue with your grassroots about dialogue. And of course, the act of agreeing the level of participation needs to involve an appropriate level of participation.

• Network organisations that claim to be participatory quite often, in practice, work with quite low levels of grassroots participation. They consult, but all the decision-making power rests firmly within the professional end of the organisation. Why? Two of the reasons I’ve encountered most frequently include:

1. fear of negative criticism – that is, that if we ask the grassroots how we’re doing we won’t like the answer
2. lack of trust in the ability of the grassroots to ‘see the big picture’ and ‘think strategically’.

• Take a look at Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of participation (for the original article, try this). Arnstein defines anything that limits involvement to consultation with no real power as tokenism. Harsh, but fair. Think of your own campaigning and advocacy experience – how many official procedures give a sense of involvement, but don’t deliver any real power? How does that leave you and your organisation feeling? To paraphrase campaigner John Stewart talking about public inquiries “if public inquiries delivered results or the public, the government wouldn’t allow them”. So please don’t design processes into your relationships with your grassroots that have that same, conscious or unconscious, ceiling to empowerment

TWO: Once you’ve agreed the level of participation ensure that it’s backed with an appropriate shift in organisational culture so that there is genuine acceptance of the idea across the organisation. It’s no good only the few staff who engage with your grassroots day in,day out valuing their participation and championing their contribution. Easy to say, but hard to do. Much better informed people than I have written about changes in organisational culture. If this culture-shift doesn’t happen it will show. The contradiction between the participatory rhetoric and the organisational culture will leave people feeling cheated, and lead to cynicism. To quote a friend “You will “poison the well” for years to come – people remember being bullshitted”

THREE: Trust your grassroots. Trust their competence. Trust their loyalty and enthusiasm for what you do. Trust their ability to stay with you even when you make mistakes. But hang on, doesn’t that imply a lack of trust? Yep, afraid so. All too often I’ve heard folk from all kinds of networks and organisations fret about opening up a dialogue in case they hear responses that they find unpalatable. Relax. The grassroots of any organisation may have a different perspective to the paid staff and office volunteers, but they aren’t separate from your organisation. They’re a vital living, breathing part of it. There are plenty of opportunities to engage in social action and if your grassroots didn’t value the work of your particular organisation, if they weren’t aligned with your aims and values, they’d simply go elsewhere. But they haven’t, have they? Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t to say that they haven’t any criticisms of how things work, but they’re critical friends and any critique is designed to strengthen your organisation, its work, and its effectiveness. So even if the answers you hear are unpalatable they’re not designed to undermine your work but strengthen it.

SPACE
FOUR: Hold dialogues that your grassroots are interested in. That may not be the same conversation you set out to have. Build in some time to talk to the grassroots about their perspective on an issue. You may have questions for them, but what questions do they want to answer and to discuss with their fellow grassroots volunteers? Of course it’s vital that you speak to the full diversity of your grassroots. The fear of criticism can lead organisations to select out critical voices and lose the benefit of their insight. So….

FIVE: Reach the hard-to-reach.Every network has folk that are seen as less engaged than others. This could be about geography – Here in the UK, folk in Cornwall or the Highlands and Islands probably can’t access as many of your events as others. It might be about demographics – younger folk may not find your materials, your meetings, or your mainstream as accessible as they’d like. Replace ‘younger folk’ with the margin of your choice. It may be about viewpoint – those who fill that critical friend role, but have become hard to reach because they have given up on being heard. Notice I say “seen as less engaged”…. there may be folk you see as hard-to-reach that are very engaged. The main barrier to their involvement may be your assumption that they’re hard to reach, which colours how you approach them (or indeed whether you even bother, given scarce resources and pressures on time). Check out the assumption wherever possible.

SIX: Don’t be afraid of your grassroots (See point 3 above). There is an element of paranoia that infuses some organisations – an assumption that if we open up certain decisions to influence by our networks they’ll suggest weird and off-the-wall ways forwards. Why? Because they’re amateurs and we (the professionals) have a deeper analysis and a better understanding. I’ve heard this argument about decisions on which campaign threads an organisation should pick up. And in the same team I’ve heard people acknowledge that most, if not all, of the key campaigns of the past decades originated from the grassroots. If you’ve ever found yourself thinking this kind of thing, get out into the grassroots and spend a little time. You’ll be blown away by the levels of understanding and dedication.

SEVEN: Don’t set artificially tight parameters to the dialogue. It’s easy to send the message that you’re actually trying to stifle debate and steer the conversation to one particular outcome. This is aggravated in networks that have a history of clumsy consultation (and it usually is just consultation). If you set too tight a limit, a couple of things will happen:

1. Many people will have the conversation they want to have anyway regardless of how you try to frame it.
2. Others may find it too restrictive and ‘kick off’ in some way or another, pushing the limits and leading to conflict. It is useful conflict in this case because it helps identify that something is amiss with the dialogue. However they often end up labelled as ‘troublesome’ which fuels the distrust and anxiety around relations with the grassroots.

EIGHT: Take the time that’s needed. My experience of facilitating these dialogues is that I’m always offered less time than the conversation really needs. The results are that some voices cannot be heard at all, and other can only be heard by requiring busy volunteers to take on even more work in order to squeeze in another meeting, or phone interview and so on.

Many local grassroots groups only meet monthly. Most will want to talk about an issue together before responding to any official request for dialogue. Across your network some will meet in the first week of the month, others in the third or fourth week and so on. They need some notice. They might have a full agenda already planned for the next meeting…. if you do the maths then a minimum of 8-10 weeks is needed to give local groups fair access to a dialogue.
And that only allows for one round of conversation whereas the issue may demand several rounds.

NINE: Use methods that reflect your stated values. If you lay claim to being a grassroots led, participatory and democratic organisation walk your talk in your dialogue methodology. For example, design the conversation in partnership with the grassroots, and use approaches that were created to hear more voices more deeply (see below)

TEN: Take more risks than you feel comfortable with. If you’ve read this far you may already be uncomfortable with some of the ideas and examples given. Risk talking to more people, different people, and talking in ways that you’re not used to (eg: Open Space, World Café, Crowd Wise, video conference, webcasting). Give more power to the grassroots than you’re accustomed to, make more and deeper commitments to implement the outcomes and then watch the shift in engagement, energy and action!

Many years ago I said to someone who I felt that making this kind of dialogue happen was no different from facilitating a meeting. I still hold to that – for example it’s about:

• building a safe but creative and open space
• having a clear, published and shared agenda
• supporting equal access to the topic
• ensuring all voices are heard
• listening with empathy
• regular and accurate summarising
• participatory decision-making
• clear feedback
• clear action points
• accountability for decisions made

with apologies to Mike Noble

Stop New Nuclear have an ambitious plan to surround the Hinkley nuclear Power station and then blockade the gates in a 24 hour action to mark the anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear accident on 10th and 11th March. They’re asking us all to be there and pledge to bring 5 friends. Here’s a snippet of what they’re saying:

In 2010, dozens of us blockaded the gates at Hinkley. In 2011 hundreds of us blockaded the entrance again. In 2012, thousands of us will surround the power station to say No to new nuclear! Not here, not anywhere!

In October 2011, people pledged to blockade. This time, pledge to bring 5 friends and tell them to do the same. Thousands are needed to surround the station!

Now, Rhizome folk will be there as spokescouncil facilitators rather than blockaders. So it seemed like we should do our bit to bring 5 friends of Rhizome (yes, that’s you!) to the blockade…

…Never done it before? There are trainings running in advance… Not sure about the issue? Read the Stop New Nuclear website… Can’t be there but want to support it? Sample training agendas are available if you want to contact Stop New Nuclear and offer to facilitate a training. I’m sure other offers of help would also be appreciated. See you there.

On the 10th-11th March 2012, one year since the Fukushima nuclear disaster began, we will return to Hinkley to form a human chain around the station to show our determined opposition to new nuclear.

In 2010, dozens of us blockaded the gates at Hinkley. In 2011 hundreds of us blockaded the entrance again. In 2012, thousands of us will surround the power station to say No to new nuclear! Not here, not anywhere!

In October 2011, people pledged to blockade. This time, pledge to bring 5 friends and tell them to do the same. Thousands are needed to surround the station!