Chapter 8 
Can at Least Some of Us 
Get Along?

In the modern world, organizations from families to governments are often dysfunctional. Is there any hope that, somehow, people could learn to cooperate in small groups? Is there, then, a possibility that we could scale that understanding up to larger groups?
There are plenty of examples of small groups that get contentious and disintegrate in a storm of infighting. Despite this, we observe that some small groups have a better track record of cooperation, without the large-scale, systematic exploitation found in industries and governments. 
In small groups, people are more likely to know each other, and care for each other, as well as their community. ItÕs easier to experiment in small groups, where changes can be made easily and rapidly without requiring large-scale political and economic movements. So we believe that small group cooperation is a fertile place to look for inspiration. 
Here, too, technological change is facilitating cooperation in a way that hasnÕt happened before. The Internet is enabling small communities, perhaps distributed over a geographical distance, to connect synchronously and asynchronously. It enables experimentation with alternative governance structures. Computer mediated communication such as decision-support software enables people to solve problems more effectively than back-and-forth conversation or voting.
Consensus process
Numerous small groups eschew unstructured conversation, followed by voting, for a more productive process: consensus.
http://consensusdecisionmaking.org is a portal to the literature on the topic and also see [Butler 1987]. In ordinary terms, the word ÒconsensusÓ is often used for a situation in which everybody agrees. Indeed, agreement, at least at some level, of all participants is the goal that consensus process strives for. Consensus process recognizes that it is not always possible to achieve unanimity on decisions. So it often strives to achieve a weaker form of agreement, one in which the vast majority do agree on an issue, but the dissenting minority agrees to Òstand downÓ. 
That is, they register their Ònon-blockingÓ objection, but concede, for the sake of being able to arrive at a collective decision, not to stand in the way of the majority opinion. Conventional voting and majority rule remain as a last resort for truly intractable issues, but ideally, are rarely invoked. 
Unlike a conventional democracy, the majority canÕt just celebrate their victory, then assume carte-blanche to do whatever they want. The majority has to hear out the concerns of the dissenters, and make a good-faith effort to address the concerns of the minority. 
Blockers of a proposal will often block because they donÕt believe a proposal will, in practice, work out as well as its supporters think it will. In this situation, a potential blocker may set up a near term milestone to definitively test an aspect of the proposal. The other participants agree that if the milestone is not passed, the proposal will be withdrawn and/or another will be adopted. Because at each point in this milestone process we have agreement of all participants, it achieves consensus. This is consonant with the principles of scientific experimentation to test hypotheses. 
In a voluntary organization, if the majority does not address concerns of the minority, the minority may walk. In US Democracy, where you canÕt walk away, minorities lose, period. If you have 49% of the population opposed, you upset nearly half the voters. ThatÕs pretty bad, especially considering weÕre all in the minority at least some of the time. 
Work on consensus process revolves around designing procedures for people to use to discuss issues and come to collective decisions. One design criteria for these procedures is to make sure that they are inclusive, with all stakeholders having a voice in the issue, and everybody having a chance to contribute ideas. Care is taken to assure that no particular individuals will dominate. If everybody believes in advance that the procedures are fair, it increases the chances that the decisions that come out of that process will be accepted.
Many consensus processes begin with brainstorming sessions, that allow everybody to express their ideas for positive contributions to solve the problem, while reserving criticism and judgment for a later stage. Emphasis is placed on appreciating Òwin-winÓ proposals that benefit both sides of an issue, and Òjoint fact-findingÓ, independent of peopleÕs positions [Susskind 1999]. 
This is important, because in most political discussions, people simply state their predefined positions, fail to listen adequately to other peopleÕs positions, and donÕt spend enough time searching for novel solutions that might be superior to their initial positions.
People do need some education and guidance as to how to interact with each other effectively in a consensus building process. The role of the facilitator in consensus meetings is crucial. The facilitator acts as a neutral third party to make sure everyoneÕs voice is heard, to check that each side is understanding the othersÕ positions and concerns, to cool hotheaded emotional displays, to encourage development of win-win proposals, and to keep everyone on track. Specific training in how to be a facilitator is essential. 
Once a wide range of proposals have been put on the table, then discussion about choosing alternatives can begin. As in conventional political discourse, people can state the reasons for and against various proposals, and debate ensues. The focus of the discourse is supposed to be less on trying to convince opponents to accede to the original proposals, and more on inventing new alternatives and iteratively modifying proposals. This often takes the form of Òfriendly amendmentsÓ made to original proposals. 
The goal is to take account of new opportunities and points of concern raised by dissenters, in order to garner wider support. That portion of the discussion can often get lengthy. But if everybody feels like they have a stake in a fundamentally fair process, they are more likely to accept the decision.
For consensus to be successful, the majority has to take the responsibility to meet the concerns of the minority. The minority has to take the responsibility of accepting the consequences of indecision or error if they decide to ÒblockÓ the consensus decision. 
Of course, itÕs difficult to make explicit rules that enforce the sense of responsibility and fairness that you need to make this process work. But at least consensus process has the aspiration of cooperation. This aspiration helps establish a social norm that leads to more productive interaction. 
We believe that consensus process represents a fundamental advance over organizational systems such as RobertÕs Rules of Order, which enshrine a competitive process as much as the Marquis of Queensberry Rules (the rules for boxing) do [Susskind 2006]. Those rules may make boxing a Òfair fightÓ, but inevitably, somebodyÕs still going to get hurt. 
Consensus process differs markedly from the current state of US national politics (or for that matter, corporate politics). The basic stance is assumed to be competitive, both between candidates, and between political parties. Any behavior to the individual politicianÕs advantage, such as presenting a one-sided view of an issue, or ad-hominem attacks on proponents of opposing viewpoints, is acceptable so long as it does not explicitly violate election laws and parliamentary rules. And even those laws do, in fact, get violated all the time. 
The Harvard Project on Negotiation (PoN, www.pon.harvard.edu) and Consensus Building Institute (www.cbuilding.org) have a long history of work in translating the lessons of game theory for a general audience. They offer practical advice to business and political leaders aimed at encouraging win-win cooperation and defusing adversarial interactions. 
PoN is best known for its series of popular books starting with Getting to Yes [Fisher 1991]. These books provide sets of guidelines to be followed in meetings and other person-to-person communication. It tries to reframe the process of negotiation to a cooperative one where both sides jointly solve problems. It recommends trying to separate the problems from the people, and to always be mindful of improving the social relationships between the participants. It tries to move to mutual understanding of interests and values. It encourages coming up with creative solutions that make the pie bigger, rather than the zero sum competitive games where somebody has to lose. 
When trade-offs do happen, it encourages trying to alleviate them, and establishing an objective basis for making them fairly. Susskind, McKarnen and Thomas-Lamar [Susskind 1999] have developed a comprehensive reference to practical consensus-oriented meeting techniques.
Other threads of work come to similar conclusions from alternative perspectives. The interest of the counterculture in forming intentional communities has led to the development of promising techniques [deTar 2013]. 
In 2011, the Occupy protests tried to construct a leaderless movement, with open meeting governance. Trying to do this without thoughtful methodology, and an untrained audience, in a high-pressure situation was so difficult that it didnÕt achieve much success. Part of the disaster of the Occupy ÒGeneral AssemblyÓ meetings happened because anybody wandering by could take up the groupÕs air time, then leave. Speakers didnÕt even hear what others said earlier, and some merely wanted a platform to speak, without expending the time to listen to others. Working consensus groups should have a way external to the consensus process to restrict meeting participants. But Occupy did open some peopleÕs eyes to the possibility of nonhierarchical organizations and alternatives to voting. 
CT Butler and Amy RothsteinÕs On Conßict and Consensus [Butler and Rothstein 1987] is a handbook for conducting consensus meetings, emphasizing the formal process aspects, and used in a number of conßict resolution situations. Chapter 2 of [deTar 2013] presents a good survey of counterculture consensus efforts, and some technical means to support them. Unfortunately, much of the counterculture work seems disconnected from relevant work in the business and government communities, like that of PoN. 
Marshall RosenbergÕs book, Nonviolent Communication, [Rosenberg 2003] deals with the emotional aspects of communication in consensus and conßict situations. This is every bit as important as the procedural aspects covered by the books cited above. It deals with such issues as how to have empathy for other people, how to express both positive and negative feelings, how to express vulnerability, responsibility and guilt. It talks about how to ask for the things we need or want, how to apologize when we make mistakes. Most importantly, it instructs about how to listen effectively and non-judgmentally, and to appreciate the beauty in others. This is not the same as ordinary politeness, where the desire to make people feel better can actually get in the way of making good decisions. 
Twelve-Step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and other support groups for dealing with substance abuse and other personal problems, have developed procedures for running their meetings and their organizations that also embody consensus principles. These groups are some of the most successful in helping people deal with the problems of their concern. They de-emphasize the role of ÒleadersÓ or experts, who are seen as performing a service role rather than a command role. Facilitators and participants take turns, assuring everyone is heard. Care is taken to welcome new members, who are assigned mentors from more experienced participants. 
Lack of consensus on consensus
Consensus is not all roses. The good intentions of consensus are necessary, but not sufficient for optimal decision making. Although weÕre presenting our best understanding here, ironically, thereÕs no complete consensus within the community, even on the definition of the word, ÒconsensusÓ itself.
The current best practices for consensus limit the roles of voting and power politics, but they come with their own pitfalls. ÒSuccessfulÓ consensus meetings will often end with everyone celebrating that they Òreached consensusÓ, regardless of whether the decision is good or not. This results in least common denominator solutions that receive the fewest objections. Politeness and over-concern with peopleÕs feelings may lead to avoiding difficult conversations. 
Because the consensus process emphasizes agreement, it may put innovation at a disadvantage. Innovative proposals almost always have detractors simply because they are unexpected. Innovative proposals have to compete with the more generally accepted conventional solutions. A good facilitator can ensure that the consensus process doesnÕt become a rubber-stamp for the groupthink of conventional wisdom.
The reality of real-time
In both conventional decision-making, and in consensus processes, the primary venue for deliberation is the face-to-face group meeting. So they both share the disadvantages inherent in any real-time meeting. 
Real time meetings tend to use one of two possible decision procedures. In one, everybody gets a chance to express their opinion (usually without much constraint on the expression, except for limited time). Then a vote is taken, and majority usually rules. We call that emote and vote.
In others, thereÕs a designated authority who will make the decision, and the speakers aim is to exert inßuence on the boss rather than convince any dissenters. We call that plea and decree. 
Neither provides the best opportunity for creatively solving problems and achieving consensus [Susskind 2006]. 
One move is to reduce reliance on real time, and move some processes online, where people can take their time to make considered responses, and see an overview of the issues rather than just react to the last thing said. 
We also believe that technology will help facilitate the mechanics of procedures like consensus processes. [Lieberman and Fry 2013] describe Justify, an interactive decision-support tool that helps record rationale in an in-person meeting or online discussion. More about this in the Tools for Reasonocracy chapter. 
The real-time nature of meetings means that people often have difficulty remembering who said what, what was addressed, and why decisions were made. In short, meetings are too complex for an individual to understand in real time. 
Justify can help with recording rationale in a structured fashion, helping people who join mid-discussion to catch up. It can decouple decisions from the pressure of real-time response, personalities and emotions. 
Decision support tools can help with exploring the consequences of what-if scenarios and cooperation-competition tradeoffs crucial to making good decisions about complex issues. And if it isnÕt a complex issue, why involve a group in the first place?
Consensus in intentional communities
Both of the authors are children of the 1960s. Back then, frustration with mainstream society launched many experimental small group collaborations, such as hippie communes, food co-ops, and worker collectives. These emphasized democratic, egalitarian decision-making. Most of them failed, often due to personal infighting between the participants. 
Groups did not have explicit procedures for dealing with disagreement that were resilient against personality conßicts. Aggressive individuals, acting as classic defectors, could easily disrupt the harmony of the entire group. So many of them failed, that the political Right uses that outcome as proof that any attempt at egalitarian governance is doomed to fail. They argue that hierarchical, command-and-control structures are Ònecessary to get things doneÓ. 
But egalitarian communities didnÕt all die. Even today, some of the rural, Òback to the landÓ communes are still in existence, after decades, such as Twin Oaks in Virginia (http://twinoaks.org) and Sandhill Farm (http://sandhillfarm.org) in Missouri. Two organizations, the Fellowship for Intentional Community (http://ic.org) and the Federation of Egalitarian Communities (http://www.thefec.org), act as a portal to such communities. Some of them have developed quite sophisticated governance and conßict resolution strategies that are responsible for their longevity. 
And in urban areas, there are countless cooperative houses and apartments, sometimes called cohousing (http://www.cohousing.org) where residents share expenses, cook together, and cooperatively organize home maintenance. (I (Lieberman) lived in one for fifteen years.)
Many affinity groups even at a large-scale, operate with relatively nonhierarchical structures. Burning Man (since 1986), and the Rainbow Gathering (since 1972), are organized for temporary events that build up and operate the equivalent of a city for a few days at a time. Dance New England (http://dne.org) (since the 1970s) operates both ongoing participatory dances and performances, and an annual summer camp run completely by volunteers, consensus meetings, and representative committees. 
Many academic and nonprofit organizations run similarly. Examples abound of small-scale volunteer groups that run mainly via consensus amongst equal participants, with representatives only necessary to take advantage of expertise, or to deal with matters that donÕt deserve attention of the wider group. In these groups, you donÕt see much of the circus of politicking, political parties, factions, power-hungry ambition, lobbying, etc. that appear in governments and corporations. 
What a lot of these organizations have in common is some kind of statement of principles, mission statement, or governance document that emphasizes the cooperative nature of participation. They establish, by example, the social norm that people are assumed to be acting with the common interest at heart, even when they express strong opinions that might incite controversy. These social norms provide a basis for calling out occasional behavior that might be self-serving, or disrespectful to other participants, before it threatens to disrupt the harmony of the group. 
The best example of an intentional community that operates largely on consensus is the scientific community, of which your authors are a part. In The process of Science, weÕll explore in depth how consensus operates in the scientific community, and how the social processes of science might point the way towards developing better cooperation models for government and industry. 
Different strokes for different folks
Above, weÕve described intentional communities based on values like egalitarianism. But what if some group of people have different ideas about what their shared values should be? You could also consider groups like the Puritans as an intentional community. They emigrated from England to America because their values were different than the surrounding culture. They certainly werenÕt egalitarian. 
One claimed benefit of Òstates rightsÓ in the US Constitution is that different states can try out different rules, and we can see how they work out. Other states can adopt just those rules that are, overall, beneficial. In the world we have examples of Communism, Democracy, Oligarchy, etc. However, it seems like the world hasnÕt been so great, so far, at learning which systems work better than which others. 
Geographic jurisdictions are a rather crude way to conduct experiments. Modern science does much better with controlled studies on select populations. It can choose much smaller and more targeted groups for conducting such experiments, making conclusions less ambiguous and more likely to lead to improvements of the experimental rules.
LetÕs take the highly contentious issue of gun control. Alaska might argue that guns protect citizens from grizzly bears. LA might argue that, guns in cars turn road rage into death. Some in LA might claim they need protection, not from bears, but from other people, but non-lethal weapons might fill that bill (See the Guns chapter). So, letÕs conditionalize the rule, not on states, but on the criterion that makes sense: No guns in areas with more than, say, 200 residents per square mile. Both urban and rural residents might not care if the rules are different in some other place.
There may, though, be a fundamental limit to how tolerant we can be of diversity. If a society or religion advocates violence, or oppressing a subgroup, there might come a point where the rights of the victims take precedence over cultural diversity. Americans are appalled by what they consider the oppression of women in some Muslim cultures. But some Muslim women in these cultures have written, ÒWe donÕt consider ourselves oppressed, and who the hell are you to decide?Ó. These are disputed cases, and difficult ones. 
We do like the idea of having a diversity of intentional communities based on alternative value systems and mechanisms for organizing society. To prevent them from becoming oppressive or cultish, though, we recommend that one universal rule should be that anyone can leave at any time. 
Cooperative enterprise
Once we understand that there is substantial benefit in exploiting untapped opportunities for cooperation, how do we put it into practice in the economy, especially when the dominant economy assumes a competitive stance? The danger is that small numbers of cooperators can be defeated by defection from a larger group of competitors, a danger that is often borne out by observation of Iterated PrisonerÕs Dilemma simulations.
One long-standing answer is the formation of economic cooperatives. In the long term, we believe that the new economy of Makerism will leapfrog the need for most large-scale economic organizations, including cooperatives. In the meantime, though, itÕs a great way of experimenting with more cooperative economic structures in todayÕs world. 
I (Lieberman) have my bank account and my mortgage in a cooperative bank (credit union), buy my food from a food co-op, shop at a cooperative university bookstore, have lived in housing cooperatives for decades, have bought car insurance from a cooperative, and have my bike fixed at a cooperative repair shop (which also offers to teach me how to fix it myself). 
Fortunately, our society permits nonprofit cooperatives, though they still face discrimination from conventional economic institutions. Cooperatives provide viable alternatives to competitive economic institutions. They can be started on a small scale and grown incrementally. They donÕt require violent revolutions or mass protest movements, and can co-exist with capitalist institutions. The Internet itself is perhaps the best and most impactful example of a cooperative. It took over from for-profit, competing information services (anyone remember Compuserve and The Source?). 
David Ellerman, a former economist for the World Bank, has put together a comprehensive book on the principles and history of worker cooperatives [Ellerman 1997]. His best example is the Mondragon cooperative in northern Spain (http://www.mondragon-corporation.com), which involves over 70,000 people in a variety of businesses, and has been operating since the 1950s. 
Ellerman debunks the myth that large-scale enterprise requires absentee investment and hierarchical management. He shows how to structure the organization to fairly share profits amongst workers, with internal capital accounts. These accounts represent each workerÕs share of the ownership and profit rights of the firm, independent of the work-for-hire nature of the salary they receive. 
The so-called ÒNew EconomyÓ enabled by the Internet refers to the fact that coordination can increasingly be provided by distributed computing. We can cut out the very expensive middlemen, called disintermediation. In the Ultimatum chapter, weÕve shown how adding middlemen can drastically decrease the share of income received by producers later in the chain. In some cases, we donÕt completely eliminate all middlemen, but new Internet-enabled intermediaries can be more efficient and less costly than traditional business intermediaries. 
Hidalgo [Hidalgo 2015] develops a more general theory called Topocracy that shows to what extent a producer is rewarded for the production itself, versus simply by virtue of their location in a network. All this points to disintermediation as a powerful agent of change. 
Examples of disintermediation abound. Travel agents were disintermediated by airline reservation sites. Amazon disintermediated bookstores. YouTube disintermediated television stations. AirBnB disintermediated hotels. Zipcar, Uber, and bike share disintermediated transportation. The evolution of 3D printers may disintermediate most manufacturing companies. 
Disintermediation represents an enormous opportunity to improve the overall efficiency of the economy. By that, we mean that middlemen donÕt take a cut, or their cut is reduced. The producer gets a higher percentage of the final sale price and the consumer pays less. 
But there are pitfalls. The new for-profit intermediaries will have to resist the temptation (predicted by game theory) to become monopolists themselves (are you listening, Amazon?). And disintermediation, like any form of automation in a capitalist society, may reduce the number of ÒjobsÓ. We need new mechanisms to make sure that innocent people do not suffer as a result, because under Capitalism, they surely are suffering.
In general, society would do well to encourage the formation of cooperatives and low-overhead private intermediaries. Traditional capitalist companies will undoubtedly take unfair defensive actions to put obstacles in the path of new institutions (via regulation, bribery, cartels, etc.). And we should put a priority on the development of new technologies that will facilitate disintermediation, such as automatic matching of supply and demand. Do-it-yourself products and services eliminate advertising, distribution costs and other unproductive overheads. 
Small-scale cooperative decision-making is already hereÑin intentional communities, in affinity organizations, in the scientific community, in economic cooperatives. ItÕs worth asking the question, what are these groups doing right?