MCC 2020: Sharing the Vision

A Case for Consensus Building

written by Tom Bavier and Ken Klucznik

As MCC 2020 engages the college community in discussions about the future of MCC we need to look at both where we are going and how we are going to get there. It seems to me that the process of defining educational goals for our students may be every bit as important as the goals themselves.  Who is involved and how they are involved can make the difference between succeeding and failing when implementing a goal.  Process is important because it reflects the values of an organization. For example, encouraging different points of view to be expressed in our discussions shows that we value diversity.  It also gives credibility to the process and is more likely to encourage buy-in from the College community. Those who take part in the consensus process commit themselves to rethinking – to being open to new ideas, to continual learning.  Finally, everyone who has taken part in reaching consensus shares the same essential vision (allowing that there will never be absolute consistency)  – and if coherence is part of our goal, then consensus becomes one certain way of encouraging coherence.  The group of six recognized the importance of process in their discussions in Utah. We discussed at length not only what we were going to say in our vision statement but who should deliver it and how it should be delivered.  In the vision and goals statement the word, “consensus,” shows up twice, once in the section on project goals and again under the section on evidence of success. Below are some thoughts on the role of consensus building in the MCC2020 initiative process.

I believe that institutions of learning play an important role in protecting and promoting democratic principles. This position is based on several ideas. The first is that by their very nature democracies depend on an educated and informed citizenry.  An educated and informed citizenry is a fundamental requirement of a successful democracy.  To the extent that citizens are informed about issues they make better choices at the voting booth and more effectively communicate their thoughts, concerns and ideas to elected officials.  Informed elected officials also make better choices. Society as a whole benefits and minority interests are taken into consideration when citizens are informed. In a society as diverse as ours it is especially important that citizens become informed about the various points of view that represent both majority and minority group interests. Because laws and decisions that benefit one group may disadvantage another, they need to be intentional and informed. Uninformed decisions are more likely to lead to divisiveness and harm.

This requirement to be informed places an enormous responsibility on each and every participating member of a democracy. And because we have chosen to form institutions of learning, public and private, and charged them with the responsibility for educating and informing our citizens, these institutions share this responsibility for safeguarding democratic principles that support and promote an educated and informed citizenry.

This is not the same as saying that institutions of learning need to be governed or managed by majority vote. Majority vote would neither be an effective nor efficient method of administering colleges or universities in my opinion. As with other enterprises, public and private, flexibility and adaptability are characteristics associated with service and success.  Majority vote is neither efficient nor effective in promoting these qualities. In addition, majority vote does not necessarily protect the rights of minority groups.  In fact, this limitation was recognized by the founding fathers of our democracy and addressed, in part, by establishing a government with a balance of powers.  Allowing all voices to be heard, protecting the rights of minority groups and freedom of expression are basic tenets of a democratic society and also happen to be important tenets of consensus building.

Consensus building can foster a sense of community. This can be very important when the goal is moving a community forward together.  When members of a community are encouraged to offer their thoughts and ideas on a topic they are more likely to feel part of the process and have a sense of ownership, even if they don’t necessarily agree with the direction chosen.  This is especially true for minority points of view.  Consensus building gives them an equal voice and allows their opinions and suggestions to be heard by those in the majority.

By letting ideas lead the way, consensus building can break down barriers among various groups with different points of view.  The barriers created by hierarchical organizational structures can be minimized and faculty and staff can see themselves as equal stakeholders in the process of helping our students succeed.  Change can become less threatening because it comes out a process that is inclusive, intentional and credible.

In consensus building, every participant must accept responsibility not only for speaking, but also for listening.  It’s not enough that each member voice an opinion; as well, each member must listen carefully to others and work hard to rethink his or her position.  That very process (akin to “active learning” that we constantly hear leads to better learning than “passive learning” in the classroom) encourages everyone to develop a clear sense of the vision that the community, through consensus, develops.  The rewards are not only buy-in, but, as well, a very real sense of shared ideas.  We have referred repeatedly to creating a more intentional and coherent climate for students.  The process of consensus provides for both.  Each member of the community who participates in the consensus process brings a shared sense of the community to each of his or her interactions – with students, with colleagues, and with members of the community.

This climate grounded in consensus is, as well, the very learning environment we have talked about creating.  Participating in a consensus process, when we insist that it include active listening, requires each participant to actively learn – from each other.  Therein lies the advantage of our diverse culture.  We will not onlybe exposed to diverse views; the enterprise of consensus building will require that we think through all of the ideas we encounter.  This requirement differs greatly from one in which everyone expresses his or her opinion and then some limited number of people sort through those points of view to reach a decision.  That decision does not belong to the participants in two important ways:  1.  It may not be theirs at all if someone else’s point of view was chosen (they may not feel any sense of ownership) and 2.  They have had no active responsibility for understanding anyone else’s point of view and so can not bring (or only with great difficulty bring) any shared vision to their interactions with others. How can we best ensure that we are coherent and that students experience is coherent without that shared sense?

It seems to me that when we look at our goals, especially our goal of improving the chances for students to succeed through providing a more coherent and focused learning environment, consensus does indeed become important, if not essential.  In addition, a consensus model speaks to a particular set of values that we may find at the center of the educational goals we develop.  Consider, for instance, the LEAP goals that we might find useful in considering our own goals.  Among them are:

• teamwork and problem solving
• civic knowledge and engagement - local and global
• intercultural knowledge and competence
• ethical reasoning and action
• foundation and skills for lifelong learning

Each of these goals is practically a natural outcome of the consensus process.

Finally, consensus building can be motivating for those who participate in the process.  By giving all a voice and by encouraging all to participate, consensus building can be a source of motivation for those who feel they have not been listened to for whatever reason in the past have chosen not to become fully engaged in the College community.

I would like to suggest that at our meeting January 5th we begin defining consensus as it used in our vision and goals statement. Like everything else we are doing relative to MCC 2020 it seems to me we need to be intentional when talking about consensus building.  Below is a description of  Quaker-based consensus model.  It’s only suggested as a starting point for our discussion.  Beyond that it seems to me that we need to discuss when consensus building is appropriate and when it is not.  

The model used by the Quakers is effective because it puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards consensus. The Quaker model has been well-received when employed in secular settings because it gives everyone a chance to speak while limiting potential disruptors (e.g., people who want unlimited airtime, or who have a particular axe to grind).

The following aspects of the Quaker model can be effectively applied in any consensus decision-making process:

• Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.
• Discussion involves active listening and sharing of information.
• Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.
• Norms limit repetition and long speeches.
• Norms include a short silence after every comment so deliberations are truly thoughtful.
• Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.
• Differences are resolved by discussion. The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.
• The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a minute of the decision.
• The group as a whole is responsible for the decision, and the decision belongs to the group.
• The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.
• Dissenters' perspectives are embraced.[3]