Dynamic Teaming Presentation Part 2

Meeting Notes: Dynamic Teaming Presentation – Part 2

Focus: Sense-Making
Facilitator: Michael

In attendance: Charlie, Catherine, Laurence, Robin, Kim (who arrived later)

Presentation Summary

Michael completed the final section of the Dynamic Teaming presentation, focusing on Sense-Making—specifically the practice of Consent Decision-Making (CDM).

Much of the discussion centered on how CDM shifts the seat of authority away from personal preference or majority vote, and into the domain of reasoned argument. This reframing creates a new container for sense- and decision-making—one that encourages clarity, dialogue, and integration over competition.

A key question was raised about lobbying and whether it would undermine the process. While some shared negative experiences with lobbying in traditional decision-making, the group explored how—within CDM—it could be seen as a form of collaborative sense-making between individuals. In this model, persuasion is valid only when based on a well-reasoned objection that shows the proposal does not meet the threshold of Good Enough for Now, Safe Enough to Try (GESE).

Catherine emphasized that in most cases—"95 percent of the time"—people act reasonably. Yet it's still critical to design decision-making processes that actively support collective intelligence, allowing diverse perspectives to shape better outcomes over time, and mitigate the ability for an unreasonable person to derail things. The goal is to avoid zero-sum dynamics and instead create a space where dissent can improve agreements rather than derail them.

Laurence posed a thoughtful question: Does CDM only work in aligned groups? For example, how would it work between two deeply opposed groups like the Montagues and Capulets? Michael responded that it can work, especially when guided by a skilled facilitator. In situations of mistrust or unfamiliarity with CDM, it’s best to start with low-stakes, safe-to-fail decisions. This builds trust, fluency, and confidence in the process before moving into more consequential territory.

Next Steps & Action Items

• Robin asked, “What’s next?”
  Michael suggested turning attention toward the Value Proposition Canvas as a tool to begin collective sense-making around potential collaborators and clients—specifically, what kinds of groups out there have needs we might be uniquely positioned to support.

📌 Action: Michael will continue the conversation in the Signal chat thread.