Questions On The Disasters Of Consensus

1. What type of decision was the group instructed to reach (e.g. majority, consensus, authoritarian, etc.)

The decisions of the group is governed by a vote, majority of the votes wins the dispute. If in any case there should be an even number of votes on both sides of the decision, a conference is held where all members must speak their mind on why the decision they chose is correct. If the decision remains at a 50/50 vote,

A consultative style encourages discussion with the team; the leader presents the situation or problem and may possibly suggest a provisional decision. They then invite discussion about it and get suggestions and ideas, the leader then decides. Positives of this style include group synergy ‘none of use is as clever as all of us’, and acknowledgment that the team has something to contribute to the decision-making process. Disadvantages of this style could include slower decision making due to consultation, and the expectation of the team or individuals that they will always be consulted.

Name at least one topic (T) issue, one relational (R) issue, one identity (I) issue, and one process (P) issue of this conflict.

Group members can achieve consensus in their decision making when they follow all of these steps except

Read “How the Strategic Prinicples of Consensus Organizing Were Applied in the Mon Valley” in Ch.3 of Consensus Organizing. The following questions come from “Questions About the Mon Valley Case Study” in Ch.3 of Consensus Organizing.

The consensus model is a good example of how society could be at an ideological level. Imagine a society where everyone was at peace, obeyed the laws, held the same morals, and behaved in a sustainable manner. As Aristotle said twenty-four hundred years ago, “if everyone lived by the golden rule, there would be no need for government”.¹ “Thus, the consensus model rests on the assumption that as people gather together to form a society, its members will naturally come to a basic agreement with regard to shared norms and values.” ² (pg. 5) But, in reality these days,

Group communication follows slightly different ‘rules’ to communication in one-to-one situations. There is often more going on in a group, with a number of different people trying to speak, get their point across and their voice heard. Turn-taking can be more complicated; relationships and power issues between group members can also be more complex than in one-to-one contexts. As a communication context, groups can have a number of benefits for participants: • a group can be an effective way of sharing responsibilities • groups can improve decision-making and problem-solving because they draw on the knowledge and skills of a number of

The Paper articulates the collective findings of those present at the Roundtable. Wanna makes comment on some main themes that emanated e.g.whilst considerable faith was

Team has to agree on the methods to which conflicts can be resolved within the group, this has to be addressed as soon as possible to enhance team cohesion and progress team effort towards achieving its goals.

Please answer the questions posed at the end of each case study in essay form.  Each essay will be judged on your capacity to present strong, logical discussions that support your conclusions.

Looking at the United States in 1965, it would seem that the future of the liberal consensus was well entrenched. The anti-war movement was in full swing, civil rights were moving forward, and Johnson's Great Society was working to alleviate the plight of the poor in America. Yet, by 1968 the liberal consensus had fallen apart, which led to the triumph of conservatism with the election of President Reagan in 1980. The question must be posed, how in the course of 15 years did liberal consensus fall apart and conservatism rise to the forefront? What were the decisive factors that caused the fracturing of what seemed to be such a powerful political force? In looking at the period from 1968 to the

The discussion is an open-process, meaning that the decision making is done amongst the group members, not just the leader. Unlike an authoritative leader, the leader of this group allows the members to be a part of his or her final say. By doing this, it helps to keep everyone on the same page and moving forward in the same direction.

Also, we would have made all decisions by consensus in order to diminish dissent amongst the group. Although debate was encouraged among team members, some decisions were inputted by a majority rule due to time

When doing so the other group members were active listener, by using their whole body verbally and nonverbal. Like facing the speaker and giving eye contact and try to avoided interruption. The group also acknowledges the thoughts of the speaker by giving constructive feed back. Due to the effectiveness of the group communication, we were able to build trust, respect and understand the issues and make decision for effective change. We illustrate this by coming together as a group one again to accomplish the goal we initially wanted to accomplish. Since the first organization that we had chosen was incorrect, so we had to make the necessary changes to accomplish our goals. The other effective feature is the purpose of the group. Kozier et al (2010) stated that the effective group purpose is when “goal, task, and outcomes are clarified. Understanding and modified so that members of the group can commit themselves to purposes through cooperation” (p.401). For instance, each individual was assign a task and knew what was to be accomplished. As group we all decided to meet at suitable day and time which was beneficial to all team members, because we could commit to the group and focus on what needed to be achieved.