I’ve dragged my feet for a very long time responding & posting my response for a number of reasons. Emily most certainly does not minimize the difficulties, nor oversell the benefits. And when I was not a manager or an administrator, I found this process useful to forge a community of interest to counter seriously bad (bad, not poor) administration. However:
1) Like Neighborhood Watches, these kind of initiatives tend to get energy from problems or bad situations that need to be addressed (like my experience). Most support/engagement melts away after the problem is solved – or it drags on a bit. Library workers often “just want to come in and do their jobs.” Consensus decision-making is best used selectively in my experience.
2) (Channeling my inner Juan here): People weasel on their commitments. Simply put, you can’t collectively peer into one anothers’ souls to see if people are being up front. I’ve experienced this too: based on consensus, I’ve taken enormous political risks in the name of the group, only to realize just how alone I was in taking those risks. Library workers tend to be risk averse, and in the end, someone has to take responsibility.
3) Which leads me to: the role of leadership. This is tricky, because I don’t want to pull the “its lonely at the top” thing. But… institutions pay leaders more to take responsibility — but that also includes morale, institutional integrity, and so on. In the end, a good leader straddles that very thin line between opening things up and then seeing them through in a responsible, open, and communicative way — or explaining what ended up not getting done and why.
4) (Inner Juan again): There are snakes-in-the-grass. Ulterior motives can and often masquerade as for the benefit of the whole (a specialized project, off-loading disliked work, or simply revenge). I actually had someone a number of months ago suggest that we not upgrade our computers and save the money (so he wouldn’t have to learn anything new on it). Which brings me to a closely related point: some folks are simply unwilling or unable to think about a larger whole. It is simply beyond them intellectually or ethically. Hence, the stable historical examples of consensus decision-making tend to be moral or ethnic communities with strong ties in place, and few opportunities for exit. And hence, consensus decision-making in other contemporary arenas (like Occupy & some of the other examples noted) tend to be temporary contracts. I don’t know if its human nature (ala Juan), but it definitely is part of western neoliberal culture.

So, my take: consensus decision-making is highly, highly useful and productive for something very episodic like long-range or strategic planning for a library; it is probably the way a smaller unit (w/oversight to protect integrity and distribution of work) should do its business. That it can and does work, often when properly set up, obviates the “heroic leadership” nonsense we’re so often fed. But, lets not fool ourselves that libraries would be perfect if only the inmates ran … (never mind!).

In a sense, humanity has been making the same mistakes and such since the advent of opposable thumbs. We seem stymied in terms of our evolution as a species and choose to delude and content ourselves with the notion that advancements in the tools we use to kill each other, keep each other alive a little longer, communicate with each other, etc., reflect the continued evolution of our species. The reality is that building more powerful weapons, drugs, apps and whatnot is not progress; the reality is that we’re failing again and again to make meaningful philosophical leaps. As Bill Hicks put it, “Evolution did not stop with the development of thumbs….It’s time to EVOLVE IDEAS”.

But humans are irrational and almost universally in denial of this fact.

Sorry to wax so cynical, but it’s getting to a point where the folks who are “to a greater degree” irrational are trashing the ecosystem to such an extent that all other considerations seem moot and I’m incredibly pessimistic about the future.

To quote Bill Hicks again, “We’re a virus with shoes”. And the world will likely be a better place when we’re gone. Regardless, I’m glad that these conversations are happening, that there are people looking at disparate points of view, thinking critically and all that, for this kind of exchange is truly the only way we’ll move forward. If only the majority of the people on this planet felt the same way. Yeah, I’m extremely cynical, but maybe, just maybe, it’s not too late.

I have also been in situations where I disagreed with the need for more meetings–where’s the compromise between consensus and efficiency?

I agree that there are times when we just can’t get things done by consensus and things can break down. At this point, what can be borrow from consensus that will still enable us to have some collective decision-making, but that won’t block progress? Also, how can we engage in these practices at work and collaborate with an administrative body that will respect this process, instead of ignore it? (see my previous comment in response to Kim discussing the contract between my union and my university’s administration).

I’m going to give that Reich a read…

You might be able to talk to the folks over at Gustavus Adolphus and see how they are liking the re-org that they did to use collegial decision-making; they might have some tips for you as you consider your future thinking.

In general, I think we can learn a lot about intentional communication in libraries and in every workplace.

The thing is, our director wants staff buy-in. As such, she pushes committee decision-making. Committee membership reflects the diversity of the library by director design (i.e. she likes to assign persons from multiple departments rather than just those with hands-on knowledge). This means that a committee devoted to, for instance, redesign of the library website might include persons who have no knowledge of web design or the principles of site architecture. Those who have a better grasp of design principles often end up locking horns with those who think it’s as simple as formatting a Word document. I’m simplifying, but you get my point.

Did I mention that the decision-making process drags on when decisions are made in committee? So much wasted staff time, which means wasted taxpayer money.

I would prefer that a very small group of people (2-3 people) with hands-on knowledge of the issue come up with recommendations that can be pitched to a larger group rather than making decisions within a larger group/committee.

When I saw this post, I immediately thought of recent NYTimes article that critiques group decision-making: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html

Worth a read.

Honestly, I prefer work-democracy (see Wilhelm Reich’s “The Mass Psychology of Fascism”). In short, those who do the work make the decisions. People not DIRECTLY involved in the work are not involved in the decision-making process. You can provide others with opportunities for input–and should–but it should never be about involving persons from disparate departments, etc simply to make people feel like they had a hand in the decision-making.

And I hate it when admins use committees to create the illusion of consensus decision-making, but then toss aside committee recommendations if they don’t jive with the output they were looking for before committee membership was even delegated.