| De: |
"Julie Cook" [ Profil ] |
| Sujet: |
Consensus building
|
| Envoyé: |
Jul 19th, 2007 - 12:36:27 |
|
| |
Hi everyone,
This is Julie Cook e-mailing you from Ottawa, I was at the YOH! conference
representing Youth Challenge International, a Toronto-based NGO, where I
have recently been accepted as a youth project leader, leading a team of
youth on a project specifically related to HIV/AIDS. I'm jumping in a bit
late, but I've been reading the discussions and I have a few observations on
this latest topic.
Both Michael and Alexia have given very logical and informative answers to
the question of consensus building. Rather than rehashing the same ideas
myself, I want to share with you some information I found on this topic from
the Conflict Research Consortium at the University of Colorado. I've
included a couple of paragraphs that I found particularly interesting:
________________________________________________
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/consens.htm
Consensus building is usually carried out by a mediator or a facilitator.
Often a team of intermediaries is involved. As with a mediator of two-party
disputes, the mediator of a consensus building effort moves through a series
of steps. These include 1) participant identification and recruitment; 2)
design of the process to be used (often involving the participants in this
phase); 3) problem definition and analysis; 4) identification and evaluation
of alternative solutions; 5) decision-making; 6) finalization and approval
of the settlement; and 7) implementation.
After the parties generate a list of alternatives, these alternatives are
carefully examined to determine the costs and benefits of each (from each
party's point of view), and the barriers to implementation. Eventually, the
choice is narrowed down to one approach which is fine-tuned, often through a
single negotiating text, until all the parties at the table agree. Thus
consensus building differs from majority rule decision making in that
everyone involved must agree with the final decision -- there is no vote.
________________________________________________
Some observations:
I think it is essential that we have a mediator to guide the process. It is
obvious that building consensus is going to necessitate a lot of discussion,
so having someone leading the process (in addition to a due date, as Michael
mentioned), will prevent us from venturing out into Neverland or talking in
circles. It would be great if someone from the World Bank could do this to
ensure objectivity.
Others have mentioned that each organization should identify itself and its
priorities to generate discussion and discover differences as well as
commonalities. I would also like to point out that if each organization
gives a brief biography of themselves (who they are, what they do, their
values, etc.), then when everyone has shared we will have a much clearer
picture of the fabric that makes up YDP. It seems to me that that in itself
would be helpful in moving the discussions along.
A final thought: let's expect some degree of conflict, and welcome it,
since it is precisely that which enables us to formulate new ideas and new
ways of thinking. No one can put it better than Nietzsche: You must have
chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Cheers,
Julie Cook
|
|
Message
Retour aux messages 
