Startseite Wirtschaftswissenschaften Chapter 5 Consensus building in communities
Kapitel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Chapter 5 Consensus building in communities

  • Gilead Levy

Abstract

Consensus building is a collaborative process for managing complex disputes and decision-making in communities, particularly cooperative ones like kibbutzim. Unlike traditional mediation, it involves multiple stakeholders and aims for broad agreement rather than unanimous consensus. The process includes stages of diagnosis, preparation, vision formulation (optional), policy drafting, community feedback, and implementation. Key challenges include composing a representative leading team, balancing community involvement with limited resources, and achieving sufficient support for proposals. Strategies to address these include careful team selection methods, multi-faceted community engagement approaches, and using nuanced voting scales. This approach differs from mediation in several ways: it’s longer, involves more participants, doesn’t require unanimous entry agreement, allows partial veto rights, and aims for an outcome “the maximum number of people can live with” rather than full consensus. The method has been successfully applied in dozens of Israeli rural communities over the past two decades to address issues like changes in way of life, asset allocation, and strategic planning. While new technologies are increasingly incorporated, in-person dialogic interactions remain crucial to the process.

Abstract

Consensus building is a collaborative process for managing complex disputes and decision-making in communities, particularly cooperative ones like kibbutzim. Unlike traditional mediation, it involves multiple stakeholders and aims for broad agreement rather than unanimous consensus. The process includes stages of diagnosis, preparation, vision formulation (optional), policy drafting, community feedback, and implementation. Key challenges include composing a representative leading team, balancing community involvement with limited resources, and achieving sufficient support for proposals. Strategies to address these include careful team selection methods, multi-faceted community engagement approaches, and using nuanced voting scales. This approach differs from mediation in several ways: it’s longer, involves more participants, doesn’t require unanimous entry agreement, allows partial veto rights, and aims for an outcome “the maximum number of people can live with” rather than full consensus. The method has been successfully applied in dozens of Israeli rural communities over the past two decades to address issues like changes in way of life, asset allocation, and strategic planning. While new technologies are increasingly incorporated, in-person dialogic interactions remain crucial to the process.

Heruntergeladen am 25.1.2026 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111238524-006/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen