Reasoning and trust in the consent decision-making process
“We trust and empower committees that we call circles. A circle organizes the work and makes decisions together”
Quoted from " Making group decisions: consent"
In sociocracy, consent is the default decision-making method.
Its definition is extremely simple: consent is when no circle member has an objection.
In theory, every person will consent if they can accept the proposal, and object if the proposal has negative implications with respect to the circle’s shared aim.
In reality, people are more or less connected to the same mission or aim or one to another.
There is an invisible layer of human connections that has a real influence over the process itself.
There is also a currency that we use in our sociocracy process, inside one circle or outside it and this is “trust”.
Having this double linked pattern to connect two circles, we can imagine expanding all the circles until the structure becomes a huge circle.
This is an excellent mental representation of the idea that we are finally in the same boat or in the same meta-circle.
How often do we remember that we are together on this journey?
How often do we remember that trust is important not only in operational circles, but also in the whole organizational circle which is our “boat”?
I agree with what Ted told me, that we have to remember that we are in the situation that we still build the boat while we already use it to make our journey.
That’s why I guess trust is so important between all operational levels, inside and outside circles.
Consent depends on reasoning but I guess on trust as well. These two are wheels in the same clock mechanism. Will the clock still work if we take one or another from its place? I don’t think so.
What do you think?
Adrian, your friend.
p.s. What does this last statement “Adrian, your friend” awaken in you? Accepting or rejecting? In fact it is a kind of proposal. Consent or objection? You see? It’s all about people and how they are able to relate to each other …