The Dilemma of Inclusive Decision-Making
During my training sessions on Collaborative (Nonviolent) Communication for teams in organizations, a dilemma regarding decision-making processes frequently arises. On the one hand, teams often have a need for equality and to be heard and involved in decisions. On the other hand, this seems to conflict with the needs for progress, convenience, and efficiency. There is a desire to reach well-informed decisions that are not solely driven by hierarchy, but on the other hand, “we cannot keep having endless meetings and always take everyone into account.”
This is an understandable line of reasoning, yet it proves to be treacherous. For when team members feel that their perspectives are structurally unheard or undervalued, resistance slowly but surely begins to build. This starts with semi-innocent jokes, excuses, and gossip, gradually transitioning to a lack of communication and slowing down, leading in extreme cases to active opposition and sabotage.
Deep Democracy is a decision-making process that can offer a solution to prevent or change this. While Nonviolent Communication focuses primarily on individual introspection and interpersonal dialogue, Deep Democracy focuses more on conversation and decision-making for (large) groups.
In this blog post, I will tell you more (without Chat GPT) about Deep Democracy (you can read more about Nonviolent Communication here), and how, in my view, Nonviolent Communication and Deep Democracy can complement each other.
What are the similarities between Nonviolent Communication and Deep Democracy?
Deep Democracy and Nonviolent Communication stem from the same conviction: no one holds a monopoly on the truth. The intention is also the same: the willingness to listen to one another, to learn about oneself, and to acknowledge everyone’s needs.
Neither Deep Democracy nor Nonviolent Communication aims to get our way or to convince others that we are right. The goal is mutual understanding based on the realization that there is wisdom in all perspectives, and to arrive at strategies and decisions that are broadly supported.
Ultimately, neither Nonviolent Communication nor Deep Democracy is about ‘being nice,’ seeking the middle ground, or making compromises; rather, they are about having the courage to enter into conflict and to express oneself fully. This is based on the knowledge that trust and safety within a team grow precisely when we are allowed to disagree.
What is Deep Democracy?
Deep Democracy is a process for inclusive decision-making and conflict mediation. It is aimed at recognizing and integrating diverse perspectives, including those that are unpopular or seem contradictory.
Deep Democracy consists of a philosophy and a method. The philosophy was developed by Arnold Mindell, a psychotherapist and physicist. In the Deep Democracy perspective, groups are a whole rather than a collection of separate individuals. A group is seen as a system with a collective intelligence, where all wisdom is already present; however, that wisdom is not always visible on the surface (the upper stream). Therefore, in the 1990s, Greg and Myrna Lewis developed a Deep Democracy method, also known as “Lewis Deep Democracy.”
How does Lewis Deep Democracy work?
To unlock the full wisdom of the group, there is the method. The Lewis Deep Democracy method is a practical step-by-step plan that actively makes opinions and perspectives from the “undercurrent” open for discussion.
These differing ideas are immediately decoupled from the individuals who bring them forward and added to the entire set of opinions and possibilities that apparently exist within the group. In this way, the “silent middle” is made audible, and people are not forced to choose one of the popular or loud voices, which are often at the extremes of a polarization.
This is done with questions such as “Who thinks something completely different?”, “Who else recognizes this?”, “Are there any other differing opinions?”, “Is there anyone else who would like to contribute?”. In this way, a “brave space” is created where group members experience genuine interest in their perspective. These are similar questions to those recommended by author and professor Amy Edmondson to managers who want to work on a Psychologically safe work environment.
The Lewis Deep Democracy method is not without obligation. Ultimately, decisions are made. And it may be that not everyone “gets their way.” Nevertheless, experience shows that these are different, better decisions, in which the available wisdom from the group has been included in the majority decision, and everyone’s needs have at least been acknowledged.
How can Nonviolent communication and Deep Democracy complement each other?
Nonviolent Communication involves three processes: 1) Gaining inner clarity regarding your own needs, 2) being able to express yourself Honestly in clear language without judgment or blame, and 3) being able to listen Empathically to another. These three processes are personal leadership skills that team members can develop within themselves. The more these skills are developed among team members and leaders, the smoother the group process will proceed.
Within the group process of Deep Democracy, Nonviolent Communication can therefore help provide team members with insight into their own and each other’s needs, which contributes to mutual understanding. Furthermore, Nonviolent Communication provides practical tools for objective language that you can use to ensure you are truly heard by others. Finally, Nonviolent Communication offers a way of attentive listening that invites you to empathize with the other person’s perspective.
Would you like to experience for yourself how Nonviolent Communication and Deep Democracy can further help your team or organization? Please contact us.