How Consensus Building Helps Improve Communication—
Case Study of Morris Grassfed Beef BY MICHELLE KATUNA
I
t was maybe the first time Greg* took in that some of the other cowboys didn’t feel listened to by their co-workers—and he was the one writing it on the poster at the front of the room under the column What Could Be Better? There was a comfortable silence as we sat in the circle of arranged chairs and waited for the next person—Allan—the newest and greenest of the crew, to take his turn to speak. He mentioned links between our work and his last ranch job, and offered up observations of how healthy the land looked. Greg wrote Allan’s exact words under the other column What’s Going Well? When Allan finished, it was Bryan, our foreman’s turn, and he spoke to being happy we completed our summer projects. Other thoughts, both of things going well and things that could improve, were voiced, ranging from confusion over what ranch we were supposed to report to each morning, to how pleased we were to have the vacation times we requested. We wondered if our delivery days to San Francisco should be re-thought. We brought up first visions for a pasture re-design at one ranch to facilitate cattle moves and improve land use. As each person spoke, Greg recorded the ideas, word for word, in the appropriate column. The feeling of the meeting contrasted with the normal scenes of barbed wire rolls and mid-July sun, where a hierarchy had emerged in the crew, communication was limited, and we adhered to the direct instructions of our boss, Joe Morris, or in its lieu, the ideas of the same one or two in the crew. For myself, coming to agreement with my co-workers had become challenging and I had reached out to Morris a few weeks prior for help navigating. As Morris
led us through questions that asked for our full engagement, insight, and creativity in this crew meeting, the power dynamics within our crew faded. We all were given space to speak, to listen, and to come to collective solutions. I didn’t know it then, but there was a structure which led to the listening and thoughtfulness of that meeting and the other conversations I would experience Morris facilitating that year. The structure is known as Consensus and Morris had come to learn it
What is Consensus?
Consensus meetings rely on a framework of practices and questions to get to the root of a conflict within an individual or group and then guide the person or group in coming up with actions and strategies that will move them towards a desired outcome. The Consensus structure can be used and adapted to address conflicts of many scales—intrapersonal, interpersonal or intergroup—and to address conflicts of many types, such as those of power inequality, scarcity, and transformational change. At Jeff Goebel’s Consensus Institute workshop, the basic structure of a Consensus meeting was explained and laid out as follows:
Grounding
Peter Riekowski and Michelle Katuna from teacher and facilitator, Bob Chadwick and Chadwick’s successor Jeff Goebel. When this Consensus-guided depth of conversation was demanded of our crew, we were reminded and recommitted to our work among the things we all valued—the land, the business, and the people we worked with and for. Last fall, Morris pointed me towards a three-day workshop put on by Jeff Goebel’s Consensus Institute at Frey Winery in Redwood Valley to learn more about the Consensus process. As I was taught the philosophy and framework of Consensus I was able to see how gatherings like the crew meeting are repeatable and also how this style of conservation and facilitation is applicable to any work with land and communities where shifts in behavior are needed to re-align with goals and values.
Morris began our circle-seated employee meeting with two questions: “How do you feel about being here?” and “What are your expectations for this meeting?” He motioned for one of us to start and to continue around the circle. These two questions are called the Grounding, and are always used to start a Consensus meeting. The Grounding is the first place the facilitator introduces the behavior of respectful listening, a practice that teaches each participant to listen when not their designated time to speak. Because the act of listening is discussed and the structure of Consensus gives a guaranteed and clearly defined verbal territory to each participant, power dynamics within a group have the potential to relax. Each person’s words have a place within the discussion. The Grounding is intentionally two-part so as to engage the full brain. The first question asks how one feels, engaging the emotional and creative right-side of the brain, and also CONTINUED ON PAGE 8
Num ber 182
h IN PRACTICE
7
