Kirjutasin yhe diskussiooni tarbeks pisikese selgituse konsensusliku ning autoritaarse organisatsioonikultuuri võrdluse teemal. Hakkas tunduma, et ehk võiks see jutt veel mõnele huvi pakkuda, sestap kleebin ta siia. Tõlkida siiski ei viitsi.
Just as a short remark (I'm just procrastinating again, can't really afford spending my time on this discussion): if people who could be (and in a voluntary movement therefore should be) moderating the election and engaging all the relevant parties, actually start calling majority "consensus", this really carries the message "don't bother voting if you don't vote my way". After that, wondering "why is not everyone voting?" it is either naive or hypocritic. Consensus-based processes are delicate and difficult, they have to be approached carefully and thoughtfully. Otherwise, they just don't work.
Naturally, people who are impatient and have technocratic or meritocratic tendencies (like myself), tend to understand terms like "engaging" and "consensus" in a different way, as the "soft" approach in organizational culture tends to take time and effort, it does not seem very effecient and, honestly, drains one's nerves every so often. In that sense, yes, it is more efficient to build a good old-fashioned autocracy where people elect a strong leader and after that follow his orders. The problem is that in a long run, "soft" communities are actually more efficient, as they don't marginalize dissenters, therefore they can use multiple opinions in building their strategies and apply different approaches in the implementation. But if it is hard to recognize that, it is much harder to adjust your own thinking to a new culture, even as the old one is prevalent in your everyday life outside that particular community.
It is always easier to say "6 of 10 have voted, others are not important, let's move on". There is just a chance that you'll end up with six instead of ten. And sooner or later, you're gonna say "4 out of 6 have voted...".
Posts
