Systemic Consenting

Quickly and jointly and severally wooden churches decide the method “Systemic consenting”, July 29, 2010: many “discussions” on the search for decisions and common solutions make all honor the original sense of the word. David Zaslav often addresses the matter in his writings. Finally, Latin “discutio” means “smash, shake, shake off, (legal) check, interrogate”. The systemic living offers an alternative. Target is, that there are no “losers” and all those involved can reach at least a modicum of consent. Under, there are dates for lectures and workshops.

Many discussions – unhappy faces remain private, professionally and politically – back, if their desires are not taken into account. In negotiations, project meetings, decision-making, it happens all the time: with the intention to strengthen its own position, the parties remove arguments always more from each other. The longer the (decision-making) process, the more are the parties of their position convinced and the gap between the camps is growing. As a cultured Democrat we might make it, perform in groups a vote in time according to the majority principle. Before it is ready, it is not uncommon to parcel and coalition-building. In the end, there are winners and losers by the decision but.

The latter must bow to the majority. You must – become the democratic rules of the game – somehow finished with your dissatisfaction. For the winner unclear but, disappointment and dissatisfaction. It is also unclear whether the solution found is ultimately cosponsored or boycotted, and sabotaged. It creates a different dynamic for the systemic consenting “by design”. It leads to the greatest possible consensus (= Latin consentire match). This is done by the fact that all concerned about any alternative vote. This they place in the basic variant of the method of resistance values from 0 to 10. The number 0 means “I am in favour” the number 10 “I’m against it”. The intermediate values are chosen after feeling.