Handling inappropriate blocks in consensus

When a block arises in consensus process, the situation is typically scary for everyone involved, and it can cause so much frustration that it gives the whole process a bad rap. The accepted wisdom says that blocking should happen extremely rarely. Doyenne Caroline Estes says that in 45 years of facilitating hundreds of groups she’s witnessed a correct block less than a dozen times. But less skilled groups often struggle with more frequent blocks. Blocking based on the individual’s personal preference or values rather than on the group’s well-being and values is the most common mistake in attempts at consensus process. What can you do when someone blocks inappropriately? Here are suggestions, in order, for how to address this situation. Note that the first several prescriptives need to be in place before a block is looming.

1. Nurture solid friendships in your group. The more you like each other, the stronger your web of relationships will be for dealing with challenges.

2. Train all the group members in consensus so that everyone understands when it is and is not appropriate to block. Blocks are not to get your way. Blocks are not because you would have to move out (or not be able to afford to move in) if the proposal went forward. Blocks are not to be used because a proposal doesn’t fit your values or how you want to live. Blocks are not to prevent the group from taking a risk. All these objections are appropriate and important to raise as concerns, and to use to modify the proposal, but you just can’t block over them, or else the whole process breaks down. Blocking exists in the consensus process to prevent the group from violating its own stated values or from making a mistake that is truly disastrous.

People also need to be informed about the option to Stand Aside, and when to invoke it. Groups must treat Stand Asides seriously so that people have an outlet to express major concern at the decision point without resorting to blocking.

3. Clarify the group’s common values to provide criteria for blocking that transcend personal preferences. If your common values are not yet explicit, the next best option is to rely on a general sense of what is in the group’s best interest.

4. Establish a clear procedure for handling blocks. I recommend creating an expectation that dissenters are responsible for helping seek solutions to the issue being considered. For example, at N Street Cohousing (Davis, CA) anyone who blocks is required to sit down every two weeks for up to three months with representatives of the consensus position in an effort to work out an acceptable alternative. Resident Kevin Wolf says, “If after the six meetings, consensus hasn’t been reached, the community will vote with a 75% supermajority winning. In 18 years of having this process, we have yet to get past two such blocked consensus meetings before consensus is reached. We have never voted.”

When a block is threatened

The Quakers are often thought of as the most seasoned practitioners of consensus. In 2001, the Pacific Yearly Meeting (its governing body in the Northwest), revised its Faith and Practice book to say that the facilitator can overrule a block if it comes from someone who objects too frequently. Operating this way in a communitarian context would likely offend egalitarian sensibilities and put too much burden on the facilitator. After all, if the facilitator overrules someone’s block, the dissenter (and friends) are likely to get upset at whoever happened to be facilitating that day. In her presentation at last summer’s Cohousing Conference, Annie Russell of Wonderland Hill suggested referring unresolved blocks to a community’s steering council instead, who could then render a ruling on the validity of the block.

There are various other ways to decide what constitutes an appropriate block. Laird Schaub of Sandhill Farm in Missouri applies the standard of, “Can you convince at least one other person in the group (presumably not one’s spouse) that the block is legitimate?” CT Butler (author of the Formal Consensus method) says that the group must agree a block is principled, or else it doesn’t count. And so on. Your group needs to be clear on what your standards and procedures will be before a block comes up; otherwise you run the risk of being or looking biased based on the personalities or the issue under discussion. Cohousing groups have voting fallbacks written into their bylaws to satisfy lenders; you need to know under what circumstances and how you will invoke such a fallback.

5. Work with the substance of the concern.

• Assume goodwill.
• Often a dissenter will be inarticulate, and need support – don’t isolate that person. Instead, find them one or more allies.
• Do major reflective listening. Make an effort to fully understand the blocker’s concerns and then check to be sure that their point of view has been grasped by the rest of the group.
• Ask questions to draw them out.
• Listen for the “piece of the truth” the dissenter is holding.
• Engage the people with concerns in solving the problem – ask them what would work for them that would also address the other needs that are present.
• Look for common ground. Search out how their concern can be integrated.

6. If it seems that someone is blocking based on personal preference, others in the group need to speak up. Consider starting gently, by having one person approach the blocker outside of meeting. If that doesn’t work, multiple people need to speak up to get through the resistance and avoid having one person take all the heat. Talk with the blocker respectfully, honestly, and as kindly as you can. If the group has made a substantial effort to understand the blocker’s point of view, yet the person still insists that she or he is not being heard, someone might say, “I’d like to know how you would tell the difference between not being heard vs. being heard and disagreed with.” Or, “I think we do hear you and are just disagreeing with you. But I could be wrong. Can you tell me what I can do to help you have a sense of being heard?” Again, usually what is needed is some really excellent reflective listening. Occasionally someone needs to be reminded of the Stand Aside option and what it’s there for.

7. Invoke whatever procedures were agreed to in Step 4, and/or a voting fallback. While traditionally consensus groups have not had voting fallbacks, Rob Sandelin of Sharingwood Cohousing (Snohomish, WA) points out that they do prevent a tyranny of the minority. If someone knows they can potentially be outvoted, they are more likely to act cooperatively.

The Quakers say that one should only block after a sleepless night and the shedding of tears, and at most a few times in a lifetime. However, sometimes it really is appropriate. While this article has addressed how to reduce blocks, the nurturing of dissent and the open, honest expression of concerns are equally essential to effective consensus process. Living in community, and in consensus, is about finding the balance.