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.