A new way to select the Working Committee and Council (Interviews)

The selection of the Working Committee and Auroville Council has always been a difficult process, and this time is no different. In January the residents were asked to vote on a so-called Participatory Selection Process, but as the required quorum of 10% of the number of residents (180 people) was not reached, with only 144 people voting, no decision was taken. As a consequence, the term of office of the existing group members was extended.

The issue was once again brought to the Residents’ Assembly on March 29 and 31, 2014. This time the residents were asked to vote for one out of four possible selection processes. They were:

“Intuitive intelligence”. In this process, each resident proposes 1-3 residents which they feel have “intuitive intelligence” and belong to a “true hierarchy based on each one’s power of consciousness”. The names of those that accept their nomination are then published in the News and Notes for a two-week feedback period. The Working Committee and the Auroville Council then create a Selection Committee from the nominations, taking the community’s feedback into consideration. This Selection Committee chooses the next Working Committee and Auroville Council.

“Participatory”. Residents interested in being considered for the Working Committee or Council express their willingness (e.g. nominate themselves) to perform any of the functions listed for the new Working Committee or Auroville Council: Coordinator, Facilitator, Resource Person or Listener. Residents interested attend a facilitated three-day process. The final selection will be an outcome of the three-day process, using tools supplied by the facilitators.

“Representative”. In this process a Selection Committee is created (minimum 16 members), composed of one member of each Working Committee and Council (present and past) and one member of each present mandated working group. No member of the previous Selection Committee may be present in this Selection Committee. This Selection Committee chooses the next Working Committee and Auroville Council.

The earlier used selection process. In this process a Selection Committee is created, composed of one member of each previous Working Committee; one member of each previous Auroville Council; and two members of the previous Selection Committees. This Selection Committee chooses the next Working Committee and Auroville Council. This time 318 people (18% of the adult residents) voted, of which 203 residents were in favour of the Participatory selection process.

Auroville Today talked to Jaya, Pashi, Bertrand, Manohar and Dominique, five of the Study Group members who had conceived the Participatory Selection process. We also publish the result of the General Meeting of May 28th, as well as the views of Ashatit and Alan.

Auroville Today: You have initiated a new method for choosing the Working Committee and Council. Why?

Jaya: It all started in the year 2011, when the community requested that a new selection process for Auroville’s working groups should be explored because during the selection of the previous Working Committee and Council there had been heavy lobbying for positions, and nobody wanted this to happen again. So an organization study group was constituted in which anybody could participate. We drew up a selection process for L’Avenir which brought in the element of the twelve qualities specified by The Mother. But actually the outcome was not much different from what had happened before. So when we were asked to look at how to choose the Working Committee and Council it became clear we had to come up with something new.

Meanwhile our original mandate had expanded because the feedback we received was that the selection process cannot be changed without changing the larger organization.

Pashi: We wanted to change the mindset, to get back to our core values, because no organization in itself is bad. It is the honesty and integrity of the people who operate in the system that result in either a good or a bad outcome. What came out was an attempt to experiment with a new way of thinking where we emphasize transparency and also try to include more and more people, while giving them a base of values.

Jaya: There were various threads to our new proposal. The community was asking for transparency, participation and communication, and Chandresh had proposed changing the functioning of these two groups. These factors were the starting point. Then Anny, a trained facilitator, came to observe our study group. She told us we had to stop looking, as a first step, for solutions. Rather, we had to find agreement on the values we wanted to encourage; then we needed to look at all the relevant data concerning the present situation, and only then should we turn to solutions which, anyway, would emerge naturally.

This had a very strong impact on us. We wondered which values we should use and came up with the idea of using the twelve qualities of the Mother’s symbol. A lot of research went into how to use these values. Then Jean-Francois Noubel offered his workshops on collective intelligence. He observed that while many people in Auroville were very frustrated with our present society because many people were already at a different level, it was possible to shift the general level of our society upwards. Then Monica Sharma came and offered her workshops which gave us the tools to make this shift. So all these things came together in our selection proposal and in the way we handled the three day selection process.

Bertrand: Though the members of the study group could be considered as the core team, numerous other people came in and helped at different times to make the process possible.

Let’s clarify the process. Aurovilians were invited to put themselves forward for the Working Committee or Council, and they were asked to specify which of one or more functions – coordinator, facilitator, resource person or silent listener – they were putting themselves forward for. You then had a list of names which were published. Finally, you required all the applicants to attend a three day process culminating in the selection of a Working Committee and Council.

Dominique: There were about 80 applicants, and 51 applicants showed up for the three-day process.

Pashi: Actually, while we started with 51, some people dropped out for one reason or another. On the second day we had 48 and on the third day we had 45. So the actual selection process was handled by these 45 people on the third day.

What happened during the three-day process?

Dominique: The framework was very simple. The first day was a process of self-discovery based upon the 12 qualities; on the second day the emphasis was upon the jobs which had to be achieved; and on the third day the whole group worked together to make the selection. The idea was that by the third day everybody would be able to assess what each other could do.

Bertrand: The aim of the three days was to create an atmosphere conducive to bringing people closer to their higher self. Then people could recognize in each other the necessary qualities and nominate each other for positions in these groups.

Jaya: In order to do this, there were different exercises. On the first morning we focused on the 12 qualities in small groups of six, and in the afternoon some Aurovilians who had been working with Monica Sharma came in and focused on the values that individuals stand for, as well as their fears. Then there was a deep listening exercise, followed by learning to identify one’s judgements and cultural biases.

Dominique: On the second day we focused on the jobs themselves. We talked about the mandates and the detailed tasks that the Working Committee and the Council had been given by the community. We asked the applicants to reflect on each task and which skills were necessary for each task, and for each item of each mandate we came up with a list of the skills required.

Bertrand: It was a guided work of self-discovery. We didn’t give background documents, so people came to it in an open-minded way.

Jaya: On the second afternoon, again inspired by the work of Monica Sharma, they worked on what is called a ‘conscious full-spectrum’. Three circles were drawn on a board. In the outer circle were the 12 qualities, the Auroville Charter, Mother’s Dream and To Be A True Aurovilian. In the inner circle were put the mandates of the Working Committee and Council. The middle circle represents the changes that need to take place if we want to align our values with the work we do. It’s a difficult exercise, but people understood very well that, as individuals and as a community, our values and the way we do our work are often not in alignment.

Manohar: There were different things done just to keep the movement flowing, friendly and relaxed. We had some physical exercises and a short movie was shown on quality and quantity. We also arranged it so that people would eat together to prevent the energy being dispersed.

Pashi: On the third day, the people who had opted for the Auroville Council were asked to select the people for the Working Committee, and vice versa.

Jaya: Everybody who had opted to work for the Working Committee in any of the roles were asked individually to write the names of the nine people they would like to see in the Council. Those opting for the Council were asked to write down the seven people they would like to see in the Working Committee. (In these numbers, two names from the former Council and three names from the former Working Committee were included.) They were encouraged to come up with the best team they could envisage, choosing not only from people who had expressed the wish to take up a coordinator’s role, but from everybody who was willing to serve on the respective bodies in any function. If the same names were mentioned many times, they were put in an inner circle. Those that were mentioned fewer times were put in an outer circle. If people were not mentioned at all, they were no longer part of the selection process.

Then they divided randomly into six smaller groups. Three groups selected Working Committee members, three groups the Council. If all three groups came up with the same name for the Working Committee or Council, that person was in because it meant there was consensus among all three groups on that person.

After the second round all names were in place, except one for the Working Committee. For that last name, the applicants were divided into three groups and each group asked to choose two names. The one mentioned most often was chosen. So, in the end, everybody was chosen by consensus. The two members of the former Council and three members of the former Working Committee who were included will function as a temporary ‘bridge’ to initiate the staggered turnover in these working groups and will be replaced in October or November.

We had anticipated that this would be a long and difficult day. But by noon the selection was done, and people felt very positive about the whole process. All participants did an individual evaluation of the three day process, and the collective overall score was eight out of ten. This is good for a first time event.

When the community saw the names of some of those who had put themselves forward, there was a sense that some of the old political groupings were represented once again.

Pashi: The ‘groupism’ which has been going around the community for some time was not part of the three day process. The emphasis was on the willingness to take up responsibility and on people’s competence to perform this responsibility, because this time it is all about deliverables – all of the people chosen have specific job specifications which have to be delivered in a particular timescale. It had nothing to do with politics.

We knew that there were some people who were interested in being in positions of power but when they discovered that there was no scope for power games or manipulation, then the reaction started. For example, one of the conditions for being a coordinator in either the Working Committee or Council was that you could not sit on any other working group. I had to emphasize this three times and on the third time it finally registered. This came as a shock to some people!

Manohar: We never cared about politics. The main point for us was to make everything transparent to everybody. We wanted this process to be open to everybody; it didn’t depend, for example, on your age or on how long you had been an Aurovilian. We made it very clear to everybody who participated that this would be a selection in the spirit of service, not in the spirit of power. In the end, everybody walked out of here happy, there was no tension.

Now everything is in the hands of the Residents Assembly. There is a period during which they will be able to give feedback on the names proposed, and then there will be a Residents Assembly meeting which, hopefully, will ratify these names.

Pashi: For reasons of transparency and to assist the feedback process, the photos of all the candidates as well as their abilities and experience have been made public before the Residents Assembly in a General Meeting. This has never happened before.

Who will process the feedback?

Jaya: The feedback will be looked at by the Organization Study Group, by the Residents Assembly Service, by people from the Open Platform group and by members of the present Working Committee and Council who are not standing again. We may publish the feedback – probably omitting names – so that there is openness about it. And then, in the Residents Assembly Meeting, we will present the candidates, the feedback, and our views on that feedback. Then we have to see what the community will do.

Will it be put to a vote of the Residents’ Assembly?

Dominique: There are two possible outcomes. After the presentation, either there will be consensus or, if there isn’t, we will need to vote.

One of the criticisms of the names put forward is that they are not sufficiently representative of the community as a whole.

Jaya: We have to admit there were a few times before the three day selection process when we almost stopped the process because there was a lot of concern about lobbying. We wavered and were not sure if it was going the right way. But we persisted and looking at the process now we really feel we did the right thing. People nominated themselves and the result was that 50% are from the surrounding villages and Tamil Nadu, and 50% come from abroad or elsewhere in India, which roughly corresponds to our demographic set-up. We have a lot of young people, and the groups have said they are confident of having the skills to do the job.

Nevertheless, another major criticism of the outcome of this process is that, once again, the most knowledgeable, competent and dedicated people in the community are not in these groups.

Dominique: I believe it was the best result possible in the worst circumstances. After all, the timing was bad, participation from the community in the self-nomination process was poor and the Study Group was barely ready for an experiment like this.

Jaya: I do not agree that we don’t have the ‘best’ people. There are a lot of new people; you can’t say they are not the best for they have never been tried. If only half of the potential they were showing in these three days manifests in their work, I would say that Auroville has something much better in place then it ever had before. And here I want to include the full group, not just the signatories but also the facilitators, resource people and listeners. Seeing them all work together in harmony for these three days gave a lot of hope about their potential.

Bertrand: The Study Group has taken the responsibility to continue to support these groups throughout the term of their mandate to ensure that they function well. This includes helping them acquire the necessary skills to do the job. They are asking for this. Meanwhile, we call on all the ‘wise’ and ‘experienced’ people to help them in their work so that they are not left isolated.

In some cultures and for some individuals it is not done to put yourself forward for jobs like this, even if you are very competent. Isn’t this a weakness of the self-nomination process?

Pashi: This is a problem, but nobody can be forced to take up a responsibility: to take up a responsibility should come as an inspiration from within. We have to encourage people to overcome their fears and reluctance. Here the saving grace is the resource persons. Wherever there is a deficiency in the individual who is the coordinator or facilitator, they can rely on resource persons who may be far more competent than they are.

Do you see these new groups tackling the work in an entirely new way?

Pashi: Yes. The Council’s mandate, for example, identifies 16 different tasks, yet until now they have been burdened with crisis management. Why should an entire group have to deal with that? Now it can be left to some of the resource persons. Secondly, now there will be a huge emphasis on communication both with the community and within the group. Everybody will be in the loop, including the silent listeners.

Bertrand: We want to break down the typical office function so the office will shift to an on-line forum.

Dominique: The long meetings should belong to the past. Now the groups should simply divide the tasks, and when the tasks are achieved the group comes together to briefly discuss the recommendation and make a decision.

How optimistic are you that this new initiative will work?

Jaya: If this doesn’t work out, there are other proposals. Let’s not be afraid. It doesn’t matter if we win this battle: what matters is that we find the solution. Now we have a really good foundation. We should not give in to our fears – if we do, it will blow us off-track.

But we need to support the groups as they learn to function differently. This can easily take the next three years.

Bertrand: We do not ‘own’ this process. We do this in a spirit of service to the community. Anybody who wants to improve it is more than welcome. The study group too needs to be sustained, so come and help!

Manohar: We have been working for a change in Auroville, for nobody was happy with the selection processes that have happened before. There must be goodwill to support this latest initiative and a willingness to get rid of all the old projections we have about certain people. Many of the participants in this process were born in Auroville and grew up here. Finally a new generation is taking over.

Bertrand: I am a skeptic and have a strong critical sense, and for a long time I feared that this experiment would fail. I have gone to dozens of meetings and workshops in Auroville, but this has been one of the best and most productive workshops I have ever been part of. The atmosphere was inspired; it has been a very enriching experience to see what can be done with fellow Aurovilians.

So, in the end, I am not really worried if it is rejected. Something has started to change, and that’s what’s really important.

The participatory process

If a person wants to participate in a working group, s/he can choose between four roles or types of membership and propose him/herself for one of the following roles: Listener, Coordinator, Facilitator and Resource Person.

Each working group will have its unique set of capabilities for the three types of active roles.

The Listener: Silent observation.

Motto: “I offer myself as a Silent Observer to witness the process of the Working Group, and aspire for the success of the task undertaken by the Group”.

Listeners are newly added members to the Working Groups.

They are residents who want to witness the functioning of the Group.

They follow the unfolding of the short and long term goals defined by the working group and, being aware of which task has been taken up by whom, they can assess the progress of the group members in accomplishing their mission.

Whoever participates in meetings as a Silent Listener takes the responsibility to follow the information exchanged within the group.

A Listener can silently partake in various groups.

The Coordinator: Analysis, Strategy and Action Plan.

Motto: “I offer to serve the work in an impartial way by coordinating the team, keeping in mind inclusivity, competency, efficiency and generosity. I cooperate and contribute to enable the best outcome for the task and the team.”

Coordinators are residents and have to give full time commitment. Coordinators will not participate in other working groups. A group can have a minimum 3 to maximum 12 coordinators depending on the mandate and function of the group.

A coordinator is responsible for:

a) Defining and preparing long, medium and short deliverables.

b) Prioritizing tasks and short-term deliverables.

c) Taking care of urgent matters and emergencies.

d) Ensuring that no issues are left unattended.

e) Calling on one or several facilitators connected to the working group and delegate to them a specific task and set a certain time frame for completion.

f) Coordinating the internal communication flow between facilitators, resource persons and listeners.

g) Assuring that the agreed-on ethical code of conduct is followed in all group email/doc exchanges, done via online forums.

h) Finding an interim substitute or having another coordinator/ facilitator cover for her/him in case of unavailability or absence for over 2-3 weeks.

The intention is to ensure effective monitoring of work progress by tracking closures of tasks and issues at hand.

The Facilitator: Team Spirit, Collaboration and Goal Setting.

Motto: “I offer my expertise and experience to facilitate a given task for the team. I cooperate and contribute what it takes for the best outcome of the task and the team”.

Facilitators are residents and can be part-time team members; they are called upon by the coordinator based on a specific task.

The number of facilitators in a working group can vary.

They are responsible for completing a task in collaboration with resource persons.

The Facilitator calls on resource persons that hold knowledge or skills relevant to the task. S/he creates a team that takes responsibility to complete the assigned task, while keeping the working group informed of the status, outcome or any problem.

All communication will be done via an internal on-line communication forum accessible to the full team.

Coordinators and Facilitators meet as often as needed.

The Resource person: Expertise, Experience, Wisdom and Values

Motto: “I offer my expertise and experience to complete a given task for the team. I cooperate and contribute towards the best outcome of the task and the team.”

The time commitment of a resource person is need-based and thus allows flexibility to help the team according to her/his capabilities.

There will be a pool of resource persons created for each working group.

Resource persons offer their expertise, skills and knowledge whenever they are called upon.

When needed, the working group can call other resource persons from outside this pool.

The number of resource persons connected to a working group can vary.

NOTE: The individual roles can evolve and change. The group is dynamic and may shuffle their roles and the team may expand and shrink as necessary. Anyone can join at any time as a listener at the request of the coordinators of the group.