Consensual Process -- Training for Juries and Other Deliberative Groups?

The Public Participation Learning Community has engaged in a series of fascinating discussions regarding consensus, dissent, and how to facilitative collaborative process. This included a viewing of the classic film, "12 Angry Men" at our May meeting, which led to the question, "Would there be value in offering brief training to juries around collaborative group process before they began deliberation?"

As we engaged in the June discussion, we broadened the conversation to include other types of groups, depending upon (a) their length of time together, (b) their level of transparency in process, and (c) the formality of their decision-making process. At yesterday's meeting, we continued to explore the value of this training in various contexts, likely sources of resistance and what they mean, and the continued application of such training for capacity building (in organizations and across citizenry) for student leaders, as well as those in workplace, organizational, and public policy leadership roles. At next month's meeting on August 23rd, 1-3pm at the Union, we will more specifically discuss the components of such training: What is needed? How should it be taught? How might content and process be varied to accommodate for different contexts?

You are invited to comment on this topic, offer any resources that may be helpful in understanding what has been done thus far, and (as possible) to join us in the discussion! Some additional notes from our June discussion are included below, as well.

Harry
__________________________
Public Participation Learning Community – Focus on Training in Consensual Group Process for a Variety of Deliberative Bodies (Draft, June 2010)


At our June meeting, we identified a matrix of variables to consider in developing the most effective tools and strategies for helping group members learn effective consensual processes. We thought that if we distinguish among these types of contexts and applications, it may help us arrive at more specific suggestions to offer. We identified three key variables:

(1) Length of time the group is constituted

(2) The degree of transparency in their deliberations

(3) The expected decision-making (DM) protocol

Short-term
(e.g., Jury, Project Team) Medium-term
(e.g., Task Force, ad hoc Committee) Long-term
(e.g., School Board, City Council, Standing Committee)

Private
(e.g., Jury, Senior Management Team) Semi-public/ Somewhat transparent
(e.g., School Board in ‘executive session’) Public/Transparent
(e.g., open meetings, forums)

Majority Rule (Likely using Robert’s Rules) DM
(e.g., City Council, School Board) Consensual Approaches with Majority Vote ‘Default’
(e.g., Many Task Forces and Committees) Consensus DM
(e.g., some staff teams and committees, Coops; Quaker Meeting, Swiss Legislature)

The core elements we think need to be understood in all cases include:

• Communication Skills (both assertion and listening) that are consistent with inquiry, dialogue, and problem-solving based upon a mutual understanding of members’ perspectives

• Negotiation Skills that emphasize interest-based approaches to conflict management and solution seeking

• Creative thinking and problem-solving, including processes that appreciatively invite divergent thinking and welcoming innovative perspectives on issues, the testing of potential solutions and convergence around solutions in a manner that is connected to transparently articulated criteria.

• Facilitative Leadership, both in formal ‘Chair’ functions and embodied in members, so that a safe, constructive working environment is present that cultivates respectful application of the above skills and practices. The group facilitator needs to help the group fulfill its charge within its scope and parameters (often legal), in a manner that is both efficient in use of resources and effective in bringing forth the best participation of the group members.

There are likely additional elements that are required, though they appear to be more appropriate in some circumstances than in others. For example, school boards need to be educated regarding legal obligations, funding streams, collective bargaining agreements, and other specific information that would be quite different from a jury. However, a jury needs to understand its charge under the law, the admissibility of certain evidence (or not), and the specific consequences of lack of consensus.

-- Harry W-B