3 ms·
>I was also in a "consensus-based" meeting with a couple dozen people. It was dominated by one person who just kept insisting on getting their way, until everyb
by someguyorother 6y ago
>I was also in a "consensus-based" meeting with a couple dozen people. It was dominated by one person who just kept insisting on getting their way, until everybody else got tired and "agreed."
I heard somewhere about a variant that would be interesting to try: everyone specifies a favorite option and a consensus option. If the consensus option eventually attains a supermajority, it wins, otherwise you choose a member at random and his/her favorite option wins.
Because random is fair but usually bad, there's an incentive to reach a consensus. Anyone who blocks the discussion is gambling with the risk of getting a bad favorite option.
You could probably fix the most egregious risks by say choosing at random from the options that a supermajority don't object to. (E.g. choose an option at random, if a supermajority has marked "definitely not this", then loop to the beginning and pick another one at random.)
- washadjeffmad 6y agoOne of our presidents over a pool of largely self interested and disparately oriented divisions has a similar tactic. When they have a big decision to make, he puts the division heads in a room, says "so, what are we going to do?", lets them bluff and bicker in their usual way, and then proposes in all seriousness the worst possible and least effective way to technically accomplish what has to be done. It's a gift, really. It's effectiveness in unifying them through their desperation to make sure it never comes to pass is unparalleled. He also had those same people give each other researched introductions to his leadership, which is every bit as brilliant and trollish as it sounds.