Consensus is a group process for making decisions, where the input of everyone is carefully considered and an outcome is crafted that best meets the needs of the group. It is a process of synthesizing the wisdom of all the participants into the best decision possible at the time. It is not unanimous agreement, and in fact, participants may consent to an decision they disagree with, but recognize meets the needs of the group. The goal of a consensus process is for the group to work together to find the best solution or decision possible at the current time with the current knowledge. The root of consensus is consent, which means to give permission to. When you consent to a decision, you are giving your permission for the group to go ahead with the decision. You may disagree with the decision, but based on listening to everyone else’s input, all the individuals agree to let the decision go forward, because the decision is the best one for the entire group and its mission.
The heart of consensus is a cooperative intent, where the members are willing to work together to find the solution that meets the needs of the group. The cooperative nature of consensus is a different mindset from the competitive nature of majority voting. In a consensus process the members come together to find or create the best solutions by working together. Key attributes to successfully participation include humility, willingness to listen to others and see their perspectives, and willingness to share your own ideas but not insist they are the best ones.
Many people describe consensus as a “transformational process”. Here is a brief idea of what I think that means. You come to the meeting with a set of your own ideas, and hidden to you, your biases as well. Lets say the primary agenda of today’s meeting is the community center kitchen remodeling. You have some ideas about this and as the discussion goes around, you share your ideas. Jim, a person you don’t know well, speaks about his experiences and as you listen to Jim’s idea, you think, Wow, What a great idea. I never would have thought of that! Marsha adds to Jims great idea and this addition sparks a new idea from you, one that synthesizes your own knowledge and also uses the ideas of Jim and Marsha. The facilitator captures these ideas in a summary proposal, the group adjusts it a bit, then everyone says an enthusiastic YES! The resulting decision is a accumulation of several peoples ideas and experiences. The final product, a decision, is much better than what you alone could have come up with. When you experience this kind of decision making, where the sum is greater than the parts, you begin to recognize that the total groups wisdom may at times be greater than your own experiences. This is the transformational part of consensus process, where your own ego becomes less dominant in your problem solving and you begin to look to the group for greater knowledge and reference. You not only understand the value of other peoples contributions, you actively encourage them to participate in order for the group to get the benefit. Consensus transforms the individual to seek out the wisdom of the group, as a check point against your own experiences. It may not always be the case that the group knows more than the individual, but that the individual adds their experiences into the group, and what comes back, is often much better than what the individual could accomplish alone.
Although consensus has almost become a buzzword, it is not a new method of making decisions. Forms of consensus were used by the Jesuits, the Mennonites, and Native American groups such as the Iroquois Confederation. The Religious Society of Friends, known more commonly as the Quakers, have used consensus for centuries. In the social activism of the 1960’s, many local Friends became involved in social change groups and many of these groups embraced consensus for its collaborative and group building spirit.
How does consensus work? Consensus can be divided up into five parts, or stages. It starts with an initial idea, there is a discussion of the idea, there is a synthesizing of reactions and proposals are generated about the idea, the proposals are tested against the group and usually modified, and finally a decision is implemented and evaluated.
As an example, lets take a typical group issue: Paying for childcare for meetings. The issue is raised in a meeting and the discussion starts. Jim, a single adult who has no children, objects to paying for childcare because he has no children and thinks the parents should pay. Marsha, a single parent, thinks the group should support each other, and should pay for childcare. Tina notes that to get people with children to meetings, childcare needs to be provided, and Mark observes that by spreading the cost over the whole group the per person cost is very little, compared to if only parents had to pay. Leslie shared and experience from another group where if only one parent comes to a meeting, and only parents pay, they would have to bear the burden of the whole cost, which causes resentment and non participation. Sara pointed out that in a church group she bellows to, having a high cost for childcare drove parents with children out of the group, and so it might be a barrier for people volunteering for the group. After listening to all the ideas, Jim sees there are many more sides to the issue than he first thought about, and he proposes that it would be in the best interests of the group to spread the cost out over the whole group. A proposal is generated to assess all the members $2 per month for childcare. This specific proposal is discussed and modified so that if more than 8 children join the group, the decision will be re-evaluated. The reworded proposal is checked for any unresolved issues. Everyone agrees this is the best decision for the group at this time, and they all consent. Three months later, after they implement the decision, they evaluate it quickly and find its working fine as it is and needs no further modification.
Some key things to notice from the above example; Jim came with an open mind and evaluated all the ideas equally, even those that ran directly counter to his own personal needs. He was willing to change his ideas of what is best based on what he heard from the others in the group. People shared their ideas freely and listened to each other. Jim was willing to do what was best for the group, not just himself. After enough discussion was held to flush out all the ideas and experiences, a proposal was made. The proposal was checked, modified and checked again. The proposal included an evaluation later to check how the decision was working. Then everyone gave consent for the proposal.
During the discussion phase of consensus, issues, concerns, fears are expressed and listened to. The listening and sharing that occurs is what makes consensus a fully participatory process. Group members that are absent from the meeting, and who miss this discussion, miss the key element of understanding. The context of the decision comes from this discussion and when you miss the context, you are left out of key understandings. One problem that this raises is when groups put off decisions until a further meeting, and someone who was not at the original discussion comes to the next meeting missing most of the context of the decision. It takes tremendous talent on the part of the scribe to capture this context in the meeting notes. Some consensus groups ask that participants not join the decision if they miss the context discussion.
The assumption of using consensus is that each member of the group has a valuable contribution which like an individual puzzle piece, adds to the total picture that you want to build. By creating open and honest discussion, the pieces become known to everyone. Once all the pieces have been laid out, they are assembled and synthesized so that the final proposal represents the very best solution possible, at that time. Well crafted consensus decisions will have the full support of the whole group and move forward without resistance from disgruntled, outvoted participants.
Within every member of any group there is a lifetime of experiences and knowledge. Consensus is a way to tap the collective knowledge of the group to craft the best decision possible.
In a consensus process, people extend their relationships to each other as part of the listening and talking process. Consensus takes time and effort, honest communication and a willingness to trust the relationship. The communication of ideas and feelings, and the empathetic listening, builds trust and bonds between group members. By encouraging shared leadership and participation, consensus empowers all the members of a group to make the best decision. By working together to clarify ideas and proposals, the members build trust and communication skills that continue to grow and expand as the group works together. The longer the group works together, the better they get. The synergy of building collaborative agreements also builds a strong sense of commitment to the group and its mission, and a sense of belonging and commitment among the members.
In the process of defining individual boundaries and issues within the group context, individual desires and boundaries are tested against the best interests of the group. The key element of making consensus work is a commitment by each individual to honor the best interests of the group. As people work through issues, they have their own needs reflected back to them against the context of the larger group needs. This encourages them to consider other interests beyond just their own.
Once an agreement is made, and everyone gives their consent to it, the agreement is backed by the relationship. If you honor your relationship to the group, your respect for the agreements which you participated in guides you to follow the agreement. Consensus means everyone has given permission for the agreement to go ahead, and by not following through on the agreement, you jeopardize your relationship and your sense of community. If the desire for group relationship is strong, then the decisions made by the groups consensus will also be strong. There is no subgroup of angry, outvoted participants that will work to undermine the decision or ignore it.
Majority voting systems can accomplish decisions very quickly, but also can strain relationships so that a sense of community become very hard if not impossible to achieve. In a majority vote, there is no need to have a commitment to a group relationship, all you need is to achieve the minimum number of votes. Expediency can become more important than relationship, which says in effect, what you think doesn't matter unless you have power. Competitive lobbying, selling ideas, horse trading ¾you vote on this and I will vote with you on that¾ and power brokering replaces honest discussions of feelings and issues. In the worse case, how everybody feels about an issue becomes irrelevant to the power of the majority, and those who are in the minority may become disaffected and disconnect from the group relationship. Once the relationship to a group is broken, it can be very difficult to heal and in effect makes any group decision unenforceable without outside intervention and threats.
If you no longer care about the group, why would you care about following group decisions? In some cases, the disaffected may end up working to undermine decisions, or simply don’t follow them.
Consensus often requires much more creativity than majority voting systems do, often resulting in better solutions. In a majority vote in a competitive environment, you only have to create a solution that meets the needs of the required majority. Once the votes needed to win are accumulated, no more discussion or ideas are needed, or wanted. This is sometimes how people view the American Congressional system, where two competitive parties work against each other, and once a majority of votes are established, little interest is paid to the minority discussion.
In a voting system, members can be lobbied ahead of time and if the outcome of the voting is known in advance there is little point in coming to the process with a better idea, or even contributing at all. In a consensus process, the needs of everyone in the group are heard, which often requires reworking an idea several times from several angles until the right solution is found.
Lets compare majority voting and consensus with an example. Tina, a member of a housing group has a problem with children’s toys on the walkway. After a bad day at work, she came home to find that the walkway lights that the housing authority owns still did not work. She trips over a tricycle and falls into the mud of the undone landscaping which the housing authority also has not done. Furious, partly over the housing authorities lack of response for which she feels powerless to control, she goes to the group meeting and angrily proposes a rule that no toys be allowed on the walkway after 5 PM. The energy caused by her anger drives her to lobby her non-parent neighbors ahead of time to ensure there will be enough votes for that solution, and at the next meeting, the members votes the required 51% majority and confirms that decision. However, six parents do not agree with that decision and vote against it. Since they will have to do almost all the work to implement the decision, will they work to implement the decision they voted against? Probably not without a lot of pressure and then only with resentment.
In a consensus process, Tina brings up the issue of the toys on the sidewalk and group discusses the issue. After some discussion takes place, the group realizes that the housing authority is really the one that needs to find a solution to the lights, and so one solution is generated to form a task force to find the most effective legal way to force the housing authority to put in the required lighting. However, there is still the problem of the current toys, and when the proposal is made that no toys be allowed on the walkway after 5pm, the six parents find the proposed solution does not meet the needs of the whole group. New ideas are brainstormed and discussed. This idea generation captures input, perspective and experience from the many members of the group, not just the ideas of the majority or the minority. As perspective is shared, Tina learns how difficult it is to add the burden of clean up for the parents in the housing project, many of whom are single and struggling to find time to be with their kids and work to support themselves.
Many ideas are generated. One neighbor recalls the experience she had at a camp setting where the kids formed a pickup brigade to clean up the camp. The kids at the meeting add examples of how they use teams at school and so another person adds to this idea by suggesting teams so the kids support each other, a responsibility that rotates among the kids once a week. There is an excitement from everyone in the group about these ideas, and the ideas are merged into a trial proposal, and then a final acceptable proposal crafted, which is a composite of many ideas. The proposed solution of teams of kids, with names and a sign up sheet meets the needs of those who want the toys picked up, and also is acceptable to the parents because it gives kids a sense of ownership and responsibility, and the kids are excited about it to because it sounds like fun. Since everyone’s needs are met, and the proposed solution seems to meet the goal for the group very well, everyone works together with considerable commitment to implement the solution.
So the purpose of making major group policy decisions by consensus is to build communication skills and trust in the group, and to cement group agreements with the strongest available glue: the input and enthusaism of the participants. Because the implementation of decisions relies on the good will of the members, building decisions that everyone supports is the best way to ensure a decision will be honored.
Consensus is a very conservative process, and because it takes a new consensus to replace an existing decision, decisions tend to stand the test of time. Some people are uncomfortable with this conservatism because it can be hard to change a decision, once made. One addition to consensus proposals is the idea of a review period or a sunset clause. Often group decisions come from untried ideas that can benefit from learning over time. Adding a clause that the decision has to be renewed after some time has passed can encourage the group to experiment with new ideas without fear of being locked into a decision, and also incorporate new learning’s as the group progresses with the decision.
Another fear of consensus is that one person, perhaps someone who is powerful, or dysfunctional, can stop the whole group from going forward, or that a small subset of “radicals” can take over the group and paralyze its decision making. This is a very real circumstance, and one of the most common problems in consensus groups, particularly social change groups with open membership and no process training. One way to create a safety clause is to set up a group so that a majority vote is allowed under certain circumstances. Many groups actually have a majority vote defined in their bylaws, but use consensus to process their issues. Since consensus would represent a 100% majority vote, this can work well to ensure that no one person can stop the group for their own ego or dysfunctional power seeking. It can also prevent an outside agitator, or a dysfunctional member from derailing the groups process.
There are some kinds of decisions and some kinds of groups that are not suited to consensus decision making. To use consensus effectively as a group there are some requirements which will help it work:
1. The participants share a common bond or mission.
2. The participants trust each other, or are willing to do so later.
3. The participants are willing to put the best interests of the group over their own self interests. Most of the time.
4. The meeting environment is safe enough so people will freely share their ideas and opinions.
5. The participants are willing to spend the time to let the process unfold.
If all of these requirements are not present in the membership of the group, consensus may not be an effective decision making process for the group at this time. You can still use many elements of consensus, such as seeking to hear everyone’s input and issues, but you may find voting to be more effective.
There are also some issues which consensus may not be an effective process to use. A classic is over style issues or color or design choices. Choosing the color of tile in the community center bathroom may not be the best decision to put to a whole group consensus process. There is really no best solution between blue or green tile, they are simply personal preferences. In these cases, using a weighted voting system on a number of choices may be a more effective way to get the tile picked. For example, for design choices such as colors, a palette of a dozen choices could be laid out, with each member given three stickers to mark their choices. The two choices that get the most stickers could then be set up and stickers again applied until a majority of the stickers are on one color.
The root of consensus is consent. Consent means giving permission to the group to ahead. It does not mean you agree with the decision. It is common that you will consent to decisions you do not agree with. The goal is to come to an agreement that everyone will give permission to live with, at least for awhile. In a group of twenty or more adults, finding a compromise can be tricky and time consuming, requiring lots of time talking, brainstorming, looking at pros and cons, and crafting proposals. This provides ample opportunities for individuals to have their opinions and ideas considered. However, the resulting compromises made may not include everything everyone wants. The goal is to find the best course of action for the whole group, not any one individual.
There is often confusion about the role of blocking
consensus in group process. Blocking is a way that an individual stops the
whole group from going forward with a decision. Blocking is only appropriate if a participant strongly believes
that a proposed decision is going to be bad for the whole group, or violates the mission of the group. In consensus
process the discussion process should bring up all the issues and the group does
its best to work through them. And
remember, consensus is not necessarily unanimity. A individual does not have to agree with the proposal but
should be satisfied that it is the best thinking
possible at this point in time, and it is in the groups best interest to move ahead at this time. An individual should not block a decision just because they don’t like it.
The key definition to resolve what is best for everyone is to go back to the group mission statement. The group mission statement, or purpose statement should be the bottom line. If for example, your groups mission statement clearly says, We eat only vegetarian meals together, and a steak barbeque is proposed, it would be appropriate to block the decision to keep the group from violating its mission.
On of the most common problems that shows up in blocking is where a participants personal value is being used to block the group. In this case, an individual is in essence demanding that the whole group subscribe to their value. Where this often gets groups in trouble is when group values or mission statement have vague or unclear values attached to them. For example, a value statement like:” We are going to live lightly on the land”, is very vague. What does it mean exactly to live lightly? Does this mean eating only a Vegan diet? Or recycling newspapers? When individuals block the groups process based on a personal value, it is often helpful to work with the group and the individual to compare and contrast the boundaries of personal and group values in order to work them towards standing aside instead of blocking.
Blocking should be
virtually unnecessary if the group used a good process for gathering good
information by which to develop the proposal, the proposal is brought to the
group with clear explanations about the process that went into developing the
proposal, and there has been time to present the draft proposal and concerns or
questions are worked through with integrity.
Another common problem
that shows up is when a participant does not participate in the process of
working out the issues, instead shows up at the final meeting and stops the
group. This requires intervention work by the facilitator or group and is
covered in XXXXXXXX
Threatening to block an idea you don’t like is dysfunctional group behavior that cripples the groups ability to consider all perspectives and ideas fairly and equally. Just because you don’t like the idea, does not mean it may not be the best solution for everyone else, and it is to the groups advantage to discuss and look at all ideas.
There are ways of
objecting to a proposal without blocking consensus.
Non-support – I don’t
agree with this decision but I will go along.
Reservations - I think this decision is a mistake because____,
but I'll live with it.\
Call for a later review I would like this decision reviewed after ________.
If a decision facing the group impacts your personal values you need to let the group know that, and then if the group can not include your interests, you need to stand aside from the decision. Standing aside means you will not be asked to implement the decision. This does not mean that are exempt from it, only that you will not be asked to implement it.
Blocking that is based on values should filter down to the stated group values statement. If your conflict with the decision is based on a value for you but its not a group value, then you should not block the decision, you need to stand aside. For example, if you hold a religious value that all animals are sacred, but this value is not the expressed value of the whole community or group, it is not fair for you to impose your value on everybody else. If the group decides to kill chickens for dinner, your values should be honored and you should not be asked to kill any chickens. Therefore, standing aside from this decision is a proper course, not blocking.
When a person stands aside from a decision, they should be listed by name in the minutes so it is clear that the group will not expect this person to help implement this decision. If three or more people stand aside from an issue, it is a good sign that the group either should look at its values, or continue discussion about the issue.
There are issues in which individuals can not be allowed to stand aside, for example, paying a monthly assessment is not an optional thing that you can stand aside from. In such cases, even though you are standing aside, you will still be expected to implement the decision, e.g. pay the assessment.
Blocking a group decision is very stressful for the individual, it can take a great deal of courage to block a decision and so it is very important that the facilitator keep the group from attacking the person blocking. When someone blocks it provides the group the chance to hear a unique perspective that could change the proposal for the better. Perhaps the very first step is to reassure the person who is blocking that they and their concerns are important and will be heard. They are going to be stressed and so they will need support. If blocking becomes an emotional wringer the reason for the block may never get understood by the rest of the group because the blocker is too flustered to think clearly. When a decision is blocked the group is going to potentially be disgruntled, probably in direct proportion to how much group time went into the process. If the meeting environment is unfriendly, it can be a good idea to adjourn and have the blocking issue discussed in a small, intimate group rather than a larger group.
If an individual blocks or threatens to block because “they
don’t like it” the facilitators need to explore the issue with the individual,
to clarify the reasons for the block. Individuals who use blocking
inappropriately to impose their will on everybody else, regardless of what’s
best for the group, should be carefully counseled about the results of their
actions, and if that counseling fails, a backup vote should be called for. Consensus can not be used as a decision
process in groups where individuals use blocking to get their own way or to
wield power over the group.
It can be useful to explore the fears the individual has, and this is usually best done in a private conversation rather than the group meeting. Many blocking situations revolve around fear of what –ifs. Exploring these, and then looking at most likely scenarios may help.
It is a good idea to set up a process for dealing with consensus blocks. Usually a series of questions can be applied to determine whether the issue is a group, values, or individual issue, and then a process can be developed for
working through the issue in an orderly way. Here are some questions a facilitator can ask to
help resolve a block. Depending on the situation, these questions can be asked on the spot in the meeting, or later,
after the meeting in a special session to help clarify the issues around the
block.
Obviously to override a block is a decision that has far reaching implications. In most cases this causes the blocking individual to feel enormously out of sync with the values of the group, and it is common that when an individual who blocks a group is then outvoting, they will leave the group. However, in some cases, the issue is simply conflicted. If all reasonable mediation attempts fail, a fall back vote may not cause undue harm to the group, especially if the minority opinion is understood and not vilified.
Mediation with the individual(s) and representatives of the group should be attempted first, with a clear goal of understanding the reasons and thinking for the block.
Many groups that use consensus have a majority vote fallback. If an individual concern is such that it out of sync with the stated group values, or represents a unreasonable use of a block, a vote is called for. The fact that a disgruntled or dysfunctional group member can not endlessly keep the group from moving forward is a good reason to have a majority vote fallback option. In the early 70’s, some anti-nuclear groups were infiltrated by hostile agents who simply blocked consensus to stop the groups activities. Also, the knowledge that an individual can not stop the group unnecessarily often places a pressure on the blocking individual to find a solution.
A consensus decision may represent considerable time and emotional energy. Although participants may have struggled to create the best decision they could, a decision might need to be changed later based on new information or other situations.
However, there may be significant resistance from the partipants to go through discussions about THAT topic again.
One way to ensure that group time is not spent discussing issues that only one person wants to bring up is to require that reopening a consensus decision have some minimum number of supporters. Often this is stated as a percentage of the total group, such as 10 or 20 percent.
Another way to revisit decisions is to have an annual review process where ALL agreements can be evaluated and put on a schedule for review.
Sometimes you need to make a decision about things the group does not have experience in. One way to work this out is to sunset a decision, so that after a certain amount of time the decision is reviewed or ends. When you do this is best to be clear whether the agreement will be reviewed, or whether the agreement ends and a new agreement, or no agreement takes it’s place.