MICHELLE KATUNA

How Consensus Building Helps Improve Communication— Case Study of Morris Grassfed Beef

BY MICHELLE KATUNA

It 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

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.

Peter Riekowski and Michelle Katuna 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

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 FROM PAGE 7

allows the speaker to acknowledge and release worries about the meeting. The second question asks about expectations, engaging the logical left-side of the brain and also gives the speaker a chance to express hidden agendas such as leaving early, or needing help with a personal issue. The Grounding brings participants into the present moment, slows the group down, informs the facilitator, and creates a foundation for the rest of the meeting.

Roles of the Facilitator and Recorder

The facilitator of a Consensus meeting tailors the Consensus structure to guide an individual or group in solving their own problems. In the case of our employee meeting, Morris re-worked the Consensus questions to get to the heart of specific conflicts in our business around personnel, land management, and finances and to reflect on the successes of our work. Morris’ questions allowed our group to think, listen to one another, and propose answers and solutions.

The facilitator chooses a person to record verbatim—that is, without paraphrase or word/ idea screening—what is said by each participant on a poster visible to the entire group. The recorder still participates in Consensus questions when it is their turn to speak. After each question, a new participant can become the recorder. The purpose of recording the conversation, word for word, is to ensure that the viewpoint of each participant is heard accurately and made visible to the group. From the recorded words we can begin to see how to move forward, together.

The Four Questions of Consensus

In its most basic form, Consensus approaches an issue with four questions, which can be tailored to fit any specific issue. While they can be adhered to in a strict order, the gift of these questions lies in their ability to be adapted. As in the case of Morris and the crew, the questions can be taken in pieces, manipulated, and even reordered at times to better serve the specific needs of the group in addressing and resolving the conflict at hand. Jeff Goebel offers the questions as follows:

1) What is the present situation? How do you feel about it?

This question allows each participant to describe their view of a situation. The question also engages the full brain, both logical and emotional. In the case of our employee meeting, Morris offered a variation specific to our operation: “How is our work going this year? And how do you feel about it?” Building upon the work done in the meeting prior to this question, the crew’s responses now began to address the roots of conflicts and successes in our work. Allan felt excited about the improving land. I felt frustrated by my voice being often ignored among the crew when we were moving forward with group decisions. Others proposed new projects to re-examine different facets of our work. This first Consensus question brings up what needs to be addressed in the rest of the meeting.

2) What are the worst possible outcomes of confronting the present situation?

Jeff notes that worst possible outcomes are “feared future outcomes, often based on past experiences with a presently experienced emotion and physical reaction. When people believe worst possible outcomes, they affect their perceptions, beliefs, values and strategies. They tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies when strongly held.” We ask this second question to release fears and become motivated to change, if we determine change is needed.

In our employee meeting, Morris had us examine each issue in the “What could be better?” column. We took a closer look at several responses from the group. In the proposed issue of some co-workers not feeling heard among the group Morris elected to steer our conversation from Goebel’s structure. Here, he could have asked: What are the imagined worst possible outcomes of addressing this? Instead, we skipped straight to: “What is the worst possible outcome of NOT addressing the situation?” We came up with various responses along the lines of : a good idea might not get tried; the situation might be too complex to solve with one person’s idea; the same people will never be heard; we’ll forget that we each have different life experiences that might be able to help; and, crew morale will suffer. Change seemed needed. We felt the urgency of Morris’ mantra: “Two heads are better than one.” Our responses propelled us into the next Consensus question which is asked to spark visioning of a desired outcome.

3) What are the best possible outcomes of confronting the present situation?

Jeff’s definition of best possible outcomes is: “hoped for future outcomes sometimes not previously experienced, but intensely imagined, with a presently experienced emotion and physical response. When people believe best possible outcomes, they affect their perceptions, beliefs, values, and strategies. They tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies when strongly held.” By thinking on best possible outcomes of addressing a situation, the individual or group can be moved to action.

In the example of the Morris employee meeting, our best possible outcome in making sure we listened to each other in the work setting became more obviously necessary when we gave voice to what this behavioral change would lead to: We would have a better chance to find creative solutions to land management issues; people on the crew would feel like they’re accepted, contributing, and part of the team; and, we could collectively solve problems that would be unsolvable on our own. As always, our responses were recorded exactly as they were spoken. We then moved to the fourth Consensus question to brainstorm how we would actualize the change we deemed necessary.

4) What beliefs, behaviors, strategies, and actions will foster the best possible outcomes?

The fourth and last question of Consensus moves a group to agree on the right way forward in addressing a conflict at hand. Beliefs and behaviors must change before we can see changes in strategies and actions. The work of the Grounding questions, listening, considering other viewpoints, releasing fears, and allowing visioning and creativity is necessary before a group or individual starts to answer this fourth question. Often the answer to this last question requires revisiting and re-answering long after the Consensus meeting.

In the employee meeting, we went around the circle to hear everyone’s response to this question and, made a list of strategies on the poster in front to address the various conflicts. In the case of crew members not feeling heard, we decided that, as a crew, when it came to a complex situation, we would try to put in practice a new behavior of checking in and respectfully listening to each idea before proceeding. The way forward would be decided by the entire crew.

Adaptive Learning

The two questions of Adaptive Learning always conclude a Consensus Meeting. These questions invite both reflection and action and are asked as: How do you feel? and What did you learn that will help you be successful? By addressing feelings, each participant can continue to engage the emotional and creative parts of their mind. By articulating what one