E-Consensus/Toolbox ConsensusDecisionMaking/AgenDa

What is Consensus Decision Making?

A consensus decision making process is inclusive, agreement seeking, process oriented, collaborative, and relationship building. The process brings together the views of all the members of the group. Proposals are built together. Anyone who has reservations to the direction of the group is encouraged to speak up and have their ideas incorporated so that the resulting proposal generates widespread agreement, and meets the needs of all stakeholders as much as possible. Consensus is based on the philosophy that the process of making decisions is a key part of the decision.

Some groups that use consensus require that all parties consent to the final proposal if it is to be adopted. Giving consent does not mean the proposal is your first choice. It means you are comfortable with the group's emerging decision. Participants are encouraged to think about the good of the whole group. And the group is encouraged to reshape proposals until everyone is comfortable with them.

Other groups prefer not to allow individuals or small minorities to block a decision when full agreement cannot be reached. These groups use a consensus process, but finalize decisions in ways that do not require unanimity. Votes with a standard of 2/3 or 3/4 approval are common. Some groups use a standard of unanimity minus one or two.

An excellent article on the Basics of Consensus Decision Making is available here

Contents

  1. Basics of Consensus Decision Making
    1. The Steps
    2. Finalizing a Decision
    3. Consensus Blocking
    4. Agreement vs. Consent
    5. Debate Over Decision Rules
    6. Conditions that Favor Unanimity
    7. Using Other Decisions Rules with a Consensus Process
  2. Guidelines for online Consensus Decision Making
      1. Introduction
      2. The Process
      3. Advantages and Disadvantages
      4. Handbooks

Basics of Consensus Decision Making

There are multiple stepwise models of how to make decisions by consensus. They vary in the amount of detail the steps describe. They also vary depending on how decisions are finalized. The basic model involves collaboratively generating a proposal, identifying unsatisfied concerns, and then modifying the proposal to generate as much agreement as possible.

The Steps

Finalizing a Decision

The level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a decision rule. The range of possible decision rules varies within the following range:

Some groups require unanimous consent (unanimity) to approve group decisions. If any participant objects, he can block consensus according to the guidelines described below. These groups use the term consensus to denote both the discussion process and the decision rule. Other groups use a consensus process to generate as much agreement as possible, but allow decisions to be finalized with a decision rule that does not require unanimity.

Consensus Blocking

Groups that require unanimity allow individual participants the option of blocking a group decision. This provision motivates a group to make sure that all group members consent to any new proposal before it is adopted. Proper guidelines for the use of this option, however, are important. The ethics of consensus decision making encourage participants to place the good of the whole group above their own individual preferences. When there is potential for a group decision to be blocked, both the group and any dissenters in the group are encouraged to collaborate until agreement can be reached. Simply vetoing a decision is not considered a responsible use of consensus blocking. Some common guidelines for the use of consensus blocking include:

A basic outline of consensus decision making that allows consensus blocking is outlined in this flow chart.

Unanimity is achieved when the full group consents to a decision. Giving consent does not necessarily mean that the proposal being considered is one’s first choice. Group members can vote their consent to a proposal because they choose to cooperate with the direction of the group, rather than insist on their personal preference. Sometimes the vote on a proposal is framed, “Is this proposal something you can live with?” This relaxed threshold for a yes vote can help make unanimity more easily achievable. Alternatively, a group member can choose to stand aside. Standing aside communicates that while a participant does not necessarily support a group decision, he does not wish to block it.

Debate Over Decision Rules

Critics of consensus blocking object to empowering individuals to block otherwise popular proposals. They believe this can result in a group experience of widespread disagreement, the opposite of a consensus process’s primary goal. Further, they believe group decision making may become stagnated by the high threshold of unanimity. Important decisions may take too long to make, or the status quo may become virtually impossible to change. The resulting tension may undermine group functionality and harm relationships between group members.

Defenders of consensus blocking believe that decision rules short of unanimity do not ensure a rigorous search for full agreement before finalizing decisions. They value the commitment to reaching unanimity and the full collaborative effort this goal requires. They believe that under the right conditions unanimous consent is achievable and the process of getting there strengthens group relationships.

Conditions that Favor Unanimity

The goals of requiring unanimity are only fully realized when a group is successful in reaching it. Thus, it is important to consider what conditions make full agreement more likely. Here are some of the most important factors that improve the chances of successfully reaching unanimity:

Using Other Decisions Rules with a Consensus Process

Many groups use a consensus decision making process with non-unanimous decision rules. The consensus process can help prevent problems associated with Robert’s Rules of Order or top-down decision making. This allows majority rule or hierarchical organizations to benefit from the collaborative efforts of the whole group and the resulting joint ownership of final proposals. For instance, a small business owner may convene a consensus decision making discussion among her staff to generate a proposal for changes to the business. After the proposal is developed, however, the business owner may retain the authority to accept or reject it.

Guidelines for online Consensus Decision Making

Introduction

A mailing list provides several advantages over other forms of communication:

The main advantages of a consensus decision-making process are:

The Process

The process described here attempts to achieve unanimity. Decisions can be blocked by dissenting parties. This form of consensus usually works only under certain conditions. Note that this process is not appropriate for all situations. For example, when there is an urgent problem, someone may need to fix it without getting approval from the group. Other decisions are too insignificant to require the group’s approval. This process is for situations in which there is adequate time for discussion, for issues that are felt to require the group’s attention, and for groups that are genuinely able to reach unanimity.

When full agreement cannot be reached in the time available or in the particular group, it is usually better to allow a decision to pass with a lower standard of approval. Otherwise, a group may suffer from widespread disagreement with the result.

In this document, we will use the term project to refer to any unit of work that’s significant enough for the group to take a decision about it. A project is initiated as follows:

1. A group member posts a proposal on the mailing list. It is recommended that proposals take the form described in another document Guidelines for Volunteer Working Groups.

2. Discussion of the proposal takes place on the list. You can take the dis- cussion off-line, but you must post a summary of any non-trivial off-line discussion on the list.

3. If other members have concerns about the proposal, they can suggest mod- ifications or amendments. The initiator tries to accommodate all concerns raised.

4. When the initiator feels that a rough consensus has been reached, he or she calls for consensus, by asking if anyone wants to ‘stand aside’ or ‘block’. Standing aside means ‘I disagree with some aspects of the project, but I don’t mind if others work on it.’ A block functions as a veto. It is accept- able to block a proposal only if you think that it violates the fundamental principles or purposes of being in the group, or if you think it endangers the very existence of the group.

5. If the proposal is blocked, the initiator may either drop the proposal, or continue the discussion in order to reach a compromise, and then call for consensus again.

6. After a call for consensus, there is a waiting period. A typical waiting period is one week, but a group may agree (e.g. in its charter) to use different waiting periods for different types of decisions. If, at the end of the waiting period, there has been no further discussion and the proposal hasn’t been blocked, it is considered to have been accepted by the group, and work can begin.

Once work on the project is underway, it is recommended that the participants use a lighter, faster process. Instead of waiting for consensus, a participant can go ahead and do several smaller tasks, then post a summary on the mailing list for the others to comment on. This is what we call the ‘trust-first principle’. It is easier to do this if the group has a clear shared understanding of the project; one way to create such an understanding is described in Guidelines for Volunteer Working Groups.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Disadvantages

Advantages

Handbooks

How to implement consensus in the decision making process of your organization? There are several very useful handbooks and websites:

ConsensusDecisionMaking (last edited 2010-10-17 04:03:33 by TimHartnett)