Democracy is a brutally efficient system for stamping out less-than-popular ideas. It’s far less useful for making wise decisions that perpetuate improvement and renewal.
For a professional learning community, consensus beats democracy left and right. Here’s what I mean by consensus: if one member of the community can’t live with a choice and it’s consequences, then we don’t move forward. We take more time to listen, discuss, and persuade, or we find an alternate option that everyone can approve.
Consensus-rule values all members equally, all the time. There is no majority and minority. There are no winners and losers. No one gets left behind.
Through consensus, every member is consulted, and every member enjoys veto power. We don’t move forward unless “we” includes every single member. Bonus: later on, when things get tough, no one can say “I never wanted to do this in the first place,” because each member had a chance to stop the train before it left the station.
Consensus honors the spirit of Galileo in the community. At some point, the future of the community may depend on a lone voice of reason among the choruses of “we’ve always done it this way” and “trust us, this many people can’t be wrong.” How many times in history has the pivotal realization been championed by a single person or small collective of dissidents? How many times in history has the ruling faction actually worked to suppress sanity and reason to preserve the status quo?
If my first allegiance is to the community, and my community is committed to consensus, then the best and most sane answer will almost always win out. It just might take a lot longer than the five minute slot on the staff meeting agenda.
Great post, Joel….I really like the conceptual framework of honoring your Galileos.
Why do you think it is so hard for school leaders to embrace the Galileos in their buildings? I know—having been a Galileo for the majority of my career—that we’re often pushed to the outskirts of school communities, but I’ve never been able to figure out why.
Compounding the problem is that most Galileos don’t care if they’re on the outside looking in! I’m perfectly happy making my own discoveries—and while I’m willing to share those ideas with others around me, I’m not going to force them to embrace my thinking. If they want to ignore me, great! That doesn’t change what I know about the world.
Any of this make sense?
Bill
Hey Bill,
If a community pushes out a dissenter, then it’s not really a community, it’s an oligarchy (I had to look it up to make sure that was the right word).
Teachers are famous for following the path of least resistance: “Don’t ask any questions, and we can end this staff meeting with time for grading.” Admins are famous for bull-dozing dissenters who might upset the status quo: “I don’t want to be *that principal* who can’t keep his staff under control.” Dissenters themselves misunderstand their role: “I am the only person in this school who really gets it, and I will not be silenced!”
The special sauce of community that brings these people into harmony is empathy. Even though we all work in the same building, we do not all have the same cognitive, emotional, and energy resources. We have to exercise sensitivity to each others’ hurts, habits, and hang-ups. We have to learn about the personal visions and goals that our bosses, employees, and co-workers have for the future. We need to ask questions to learn, rather than only asking questions to direct conversations.
It’s touchy-feely stuff, but it matters. What do you think?
The only Galileo our schools seems to honor is the Galileo tests that are, oddly enough, as far from his legacy as possible.
Administrators are really in a tough spot. I agree that Galileos are important and should have a voice, but at the same time decisions must be made. I have been in very few groups (the larger the group the less likely) who have come to a complete consensus. A good administrator will hear out all of the different ideas and opinions and try to get to the root of the issue while still maintaining the vision of the organization and negotiating buy-in from key individuals. That is why leadership is difficult. Unfortunately, someone will always be unhappy.