‘Majority rules’ may not be the best way to run strata

In her latest post for the Flat Chat website, Strata Community Association (Victoria) president Julie Maclean argues that majority rule is too blunt an instrument – especially in strata – while consensus is a better option for many reasons.

Attending the Natural Hazards Research Forum, I was struck by the role of consensus decision making in communities. Consensus is also the governance model used by cohousing communities. In strata, we talk a lot about building community and raising the bar.

Shifting to making decisions by consensus could achieve both goals. Majority voting is a statutory requirement and a low bar. Consensus, on the other hand, by definition requires more than a majority and raises the bar.

Collective decision making by consensus has several advantages over decision making by majority vote:

• Increased ownership and commitment: When a decision is made by consensus, everyone has the opportunity to share their ideas and concerns, and all participants agree to the final decision. Consequently, participants feel more invested in the decision and are more committed to making it work.
• Better decisions: Consensus decision making encourages discussion and collaboration, leading to a more thorough exploration of options and a better understanding of the consequences of different choices. This can result in more creative and innovative solutions that take into account a broader range of perspectives.
• Improved relationships: When decision making is done by consensus, all participants have an equal voice and are encouraged to listen to and respect each other’s opinions. This can lead to improved communication, greater trust, and stronger relationships among group members.
• Reduced conflict: Majority decision making can result in winners and losers, with those on the losing side feeling resentful and disengaged. In contrast, consensus decision making seeks to find common ground and to accommodate the needs and concerns of all participants. This can help to reduce conflict and promote a sense of unity and shared purpose.

Consensus decision making can be a more inclusive, collaborative, and effective way of making decisions, particularly in situations where the decision will have a significant impact on owners or residents as a whole.

So why aren’t we doing it? What are the barriers?

It can also be more time-consuming and requires a high level of trust and respect among owners.

Committees could adopt this form of governance more easily than the owners corporation for the annual general meeting. Committees can introduce “standing orders” that set out the agreed terms they will conduct business.

Committees are also smaller in size and arriving at a consensus position should not be too difficult, if everyone is acting in good faith.

The annual general meeting has very little engagement by lot owners. It is seen as a “box ticking” exercise, which of course it is. It is another of those statutory functions. So how could consensus decision making help here?

One enterprising PhD candidate, Phoebe Quinn, is “exploring new possibilities for collective decision making on climate change, disaster risk reduction, and recovery using Pol.is – a cutting-edge tool for understanding community opinion and finding points of consensus on contentious issues.”

Pol.is is a real-time system for gathering, analysing, and understanding what large groups of people think in their own words, enabled by advanced statistics and machine learning. The platform allows everyone’s opinion to be heard, restricts the power of individuals to ruin a conversation with bad behaviour, and avoids the echo chamber effect that can occur on social media. The platform collects all of the information and provides a summary. It has both free and paid versions.

This could very well be a turning point for liveability in strata.