Exploring the idea of the community college as a community from the Capra framework, one aspect of the community is that it must be self-regulating. Governance is a part of "self-regulation". Many community colleges have shared governance as an important part of how they do business. How shared governance is operationalized and practiced on a community college campus is what I would like to explore for this semester as I think about community.
Lucey (2002) contends that because public colleges are funded as a part of the public good, our ultimate customers are the larger civic community which should appropriate expect that we provide an education "that prepares students for an engaged life in democracy". In order to do that she argues that decision-making at colleges should reflect the best aspects of engagement in a democratic society. To do this, the various constituencies of the college should have an opportunity to provide input on major college decisions; they should foster a climate of respect, dialog and inquiry; and there should be processes in place to find common ground as well as resolve differences.
One aspect of this issue I am starting to explore is the idea of using consensus decision-making. A nice overview for consensus can be found at http://www.ic.org/nica/Process/Consensusbasics.htm
The key idea is to have a collective decision that is arrived at after thorough communication and consideration of the views of others. Not everyone has to agree with the decision 100%, but every one in the group has to be willing to go along with the decision. This is a very rich, time-consuming, community building process that is useful for decisions that need a high level of commitment and need to be of the highest quality. Determining the mission and vision of the college is one example of when a consensus process may be the most effective mechanism for the best outcome. All members of the community need to support the mission of the college to have an excellent institution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
LR>>The backdrop for 'consensus' rests on two pillars.
One is a belief in and concept of link between the indvidual and the group. In a sense, one could argue in belief that a group decision arrived at through open, participatory process is better than an individual decision.
The second is a norm for and acceptance of the process: open, transparent, participatory, etc.
Under ideal circumstance,the trust is in the process.
I think regarding my earlier blog note, and your response, about all of the work involved in consensus being lost if there is high turnover most closely fits under the "People who miss the discussion but come in on the proposal." I can think of two additional components that would greatly improve (or worsen) a group's potential for consensus decision making. The first, as mentioned, is a group with high turnover of individuals.
The second potential problem is having a good spokesperson for each of the main viewpoints. If someone can't articulate an argument well, it could easily be overlooked when it's in fact significant. This is of course a pitfall in any decision-making process. I think the only way it's addressed in consensus is that each person doesn't necessarily lose anything by taking multiple viewpoints. If you're lucky enough to have a convincing speaker with an open mind, they can represent several ideas adequately.
Post a Comment