Post in Building consensus online

Feb 01 14:42 UTC

Steven Clift wrote:
> I've found that most online tools and techniques bring our differences of
opinion rather than forging agreement within large groups online (over say 15
people). The Internet does a great job at getting issues on the table, allowing
like-minds to coalase, and when done right builds respect among those with
differing opinions.
>
> Let's say that we want move online from the statement of positions or surveys
that show current opinions to agreement or consensus on actions or proposals
among the vast majority of say 1,000 people.
>
I've been giving this a lot of thought, as regards several projects I'm
involved in, but I keep coming back to a somewhat broader question:  Has
anybody seen any approaches - online or NOT online - for building
consensus among groups of any size.

I'm led to this question by my involvement in several long-term planning
efforts - one for our Church (as a Board member), a technology planning
action for our school system, and a longer-term strategic planning
effort for the schools.  That, plus 37 years in the ARPANET/INTERNET
community wrestling precisely with the dichotomy between the Internet as
soapbox vs. the Internet as a tool for getting things done.

I keep coming back to the observation that strong leadership, and strong
organizations, get things done; while committees and crowds don't.

At the simplest level - picture a business meeting of 6 people around a
table (all examples from personal experience):

- a staff meeting, called by a clear-thinking, decisive leader, can move
quickly, reach decisions, and move to action

- a committee meeting, with a strong chair, and a clear agenda, also
tends to get things done - be the chair someone who drives the content
of the meeting ("ok, I've heard enough, here's what we're going to do")
or just drives the process ("ok, we're going around in circles, it's
time to  make a decision - will somebody please frame a motion")

- a committee meeting, with a weak leader, or with nobody in charge,
seems rarely to get anywhere - and things can get particularly perverse
in a room filled with Type A personalities (it can also get pretty
entertaining - is anybody else watching "Celebrity Apprentice?")

- now scale things up - to a company, a corporation, an Army: the
organizations that seem to be effective are ones with strong leadership
(think Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, or Jack Welch, or Gen. Eisenhower
during WWII).

- compare that to a town meeting, or Congress

- when there's less structure, it seems like a strong leader is even
more central to getting things done (think "corporate culture" as
epitomized by the old Hewlett-Packard, think JFK as motivating a
generation to action, or Martin Luther King, or, for that matter, Hitler)

Of course, there are some clear perversities here:

- strong EVIL leaders with strong organizations (e.g., Hitler) can do a
lot of damage

- week leaders, with strong organizations (think Congress) tend to go in
circles and get little done

- the same organization will do better or worse depending on who's in
charge (think any number of corporate failures and turnarounds, or the
contrast between different U.S. administrations)