Also there is just the matter of being understood. So much of people’s complaints stem from feelings of not being considered. Often when people are heard & addressed, they don’t mind so much that their concerns are not completely satisfied.

I like the additive “and” rather than the subtractive “but”. Its amazing how much it changes conversation when you get on an “and” streak. Sometimes I have to stop myself because its just too much.

One thing we might be better at in this regard is the “or”. That is, providing many options and understanding that they are all good. Maybe it could be the “and or”, because its additive, just in a different way.

I don’t know that “consensus building” is an oxymoron. Maybe just “understanding & addressing other people” would do though.

Maybe the fundamental difference is that in corporate speak consensus means that the high powered exec tells everyone what they should think until consensus is achieved. Whereas the Quaker approach is about what Michael described and assumes a more holistic view of how the world works and an appreciation for diversity.

I look forward to giving this topic a lot more thought.

On the other hand, I went to a Quaker college in the American midwest and was part of many governance bodies and processes that used consensus. Personally, my best experiences were in situations in which consensus was a conversational norm rather than a tightly prescriptive process. Here, consensus is as much about how we “govern” a conversation as about how we reach an outcome or agreement. I think of the ideal of consensus as an agreement to seek an outcome that satisfies everyone, not because it compromises and reaches a lowest common denominator, but because it forces us to grapple with diversity and nuance and to seek “larger” solutions that can contain everyone’s perspectives and goals with shoe-horning them into crappy versions of people’s third choice options.

A big clue to this in Quaker religious practice is the fundamental belief in “that light of God that is in everyone”.

True consensus is, I think, an agreement to respect each other and to work hard to put that respect into practice instead of into the empty phrases of “mission” statements.

I began to understand the differences at a deeper level through trial and error and not giving up too soon. I also really deepened my understanding through multiple long conversations with Quaker colleagues who had been living with consensus their whole lives in their personal worlds, while living in different structures in the world around them.