is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement, and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process.
While not as common as other decision-making procedures, such as Majoritarian Voting , consensus is used by a wide variety of groups. Religious denominations such as the Quakers , economic policy bodies including the Dutch Polder Model and historical Hanseatic League , Anarchist organizations such as Food Not Bombs and various Infoshop s, many Non-governmental Organization s, and even entire nations such as the Haudenosaunee use consensus decision-making. Majoritarian voting is considered the Last Resort in several democracies, consensus decision-making being the preferred process.
The word 'consensus' derives from the Latin ''cum'' meaning 'with' or 'together with', and ''sentire'' meaning to 'think' or 'feel'. Thus, etymologically, 'consensus' means to 'think or feel together'.
As a decision-making process, consensus aims to be:
- : As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process.
- : The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.1
- : Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than opt to pursue a majority opinion, potentially to the detriment of a minority.
- : All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to table, amend and veto or "block" proposals.
- : An effective consensus decision-making body strives to emphasise common agreement over differences and reach effective decisions using compromise and other techniques to avoid or resolve mutually-exclusive positions within the group.
Proponents of consensus decision making view the traditional, majoritarian voting process as undesirable for several reasons.
Voting is regarded as being competitive, rather than co-operative, framing decision-making in a win/lose dichotomy that ignores the possibility of compromise or other potential solutions.2 Additionally, majoritarian rule is also often viewed as disempowering or alienating, subjecting a minority to the rule of a majority position.3
Proponents of consensus often submit that this 'tyranny of the majority' exacerbates the problem of partisanship and can reduce group cohesion and effectiveness.
Lastly, advocates of consensus frequently state that a majority decision reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision. Members of a minority position may feel less commitment to a majority decision, and even majority voters who may have taken their positions along party or bloc lines may have a sense of reduced responsibility for the ultimate decision. The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus proponents, is potentially less willingness to defend or act upon the decision.
Since the consensus decision-making process is not as formalized as others, such as Roberts Rules Of Order , the practical details of its implementation vary from group to group. However, there is a core set of procedures which is common to most implementations of consensus decision-making.456
Once an agenda for discussion has been set and, optionally, the ground rules for the meeting have been agreed upon, each item of the agenda is addressed in turn. Typically, each decision arising from an agenda item follows through a simple structure:
- The item is discussed with the goal of identifying opinions and information on the topic at hand. The general direction of the group and potential proposals for action are often identified during the discussion.
- Based on the discussion, a formal decision proposal on the issue is presented to the group.
- The facilitator of the decision-making body calls for consensus on the proposal. Each member of the group usually must actively state their agreement with the proposal, often by using a hand gesture or raising a colored card, to avoid the group from interpreting silence or inaction as agreement.
- If consensus is not achieved, each dissenter presents his or her concerns on the proposal, potentially starting another round of discussion to address or clarify the concern.
- The proposal is amended, re-phrased or Ridered in an attempt to address the concerns of the decision-makers. The process then returns to the call for consensus and the cycle is repeated until a satisfactory decision is made.
The consensus decision-making process often has several roles which are designed to make the process run more effectively. Although the name and nature of these roles varies from group to group, the most common are the Facilitator , a timekeeper, an empath and a secretary or notes taker. Not all decision-making bodies use all of these roles, although the facilitator position is almost always filled, and some groups use supplementary roles, such as a Devil's Advocate or greeter. Some decision-making bodies opt to rotate these roles through the group members in order to build the experience and skills of the participants, and prevent any perceived concentration of power.
The common roles in a consensus meeting are:
- As the name implies, the role of the facilitator is to help make the process of reaching a consensus decision easier. Facilitators accept responsibility for moving through the agenda on time; ensuring the group adheres to the mutually agreed-upon mechanics of the consensus process; and, if necessary, suggesting alternate or additional discussion or decision-making techniques, such as go-arounds, break-out groups or role-playing.78 Some consensus groups use two co-facilitators. Shared facilitation is often adopted to diffuse the perceived power of the facilitator and create a system whereby a co-facilitator can pass off facilitation duties if he or she becomes more personally engaged in a debate.9
- The purpose of the timekeeper is to ensure the decision-making body keeps to the schedule set in the agenda. Effective timekeepers use a variety of techniques to ensure the meeting runs on time including: giving frequent time updates, ample warning of short time, and keeping individual speakers from taking an excessive amount of time.
- The empath, or 'vibe watch' as the position is sometimes called, is charged with monitoring the 'emotional climate' of the meeting, taking note of the body language and other Non-verbal Cues of the participants. Defusing potential emotional conflicts, maintaining a climate free of intimidation and being aware of potentially destructive power dynamics, such as sexism or racism within the decision-making body, are the primary responsibilities of the empath.10
- The role of the notes taker or secretary is to document the decisions, discussion and action points of the decision-making body. Unlike other forms of decision-making, consensus minutes often make a point of documenting dissenting positions.
A healthy consensus decision-making process usually encourages and outs dissent early, maximizing the chance of accommodating the views of all minorities. For instance, the Vatican was known to assign the role of Promotor Fidei , or Devil's Advocate , to a specific priest. This process was used most often in decisions of Beatification .
Since unanimity may be difficult to achieve, especially in large groups, or unanimity may be the result of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives, or plain impatience with the process of debate, consensus decision making bodies may use an alternative benchmark of consensus. These include the following:
- (or U-1), requires all delegates but one to support the decision. The individual dissenter cannot block the decision although he or she may be able to prolong debate (e.g. via a Filibuster ). The dissenter may be the ongoing monitor of the implications of the decision, and their opinion of the outcome of the decision may be solicited at some future time. Betting markets in particular rely on the input of such lone dissenters. A lone bettor against the odds profits when his or her prediction of the outcomes proves to be better than that of the majority. This disciplines the market's odds.
- (or U-2), does not permit two individual delegates to block a decision, but tends to curtail debate with a lone dissenter more quickly. Dissenting ''pairs'' can present alternate views of what is wrong with the decision under consideration. Pairs of delegates can be empowered to find the common ground that will enable them to convince a third, decision-blocking, decision-maker to join them. If the pair are unable to convince a third party to join them within a set time, their arguments are deemed to be unconvincing.
- , (or U-3), and other such systems recognize the ability of four or more delegates to actively block a decision. U-3 and lesser degrees of unanimity are usually lumped in with statistical measures of agreement, such as: 80%, mean plus one sigma, two-thirds, or majority levels of agreement. Such measures usually do not fit within the definition of consensus.
- is the process used by the IETF Working Group , where there is no specific rule for "how much is enough". Rather, the question of consensus is left to the judgment of the working group chair. While this makes it more difficult for a small number of disruptors to block a decision, it puts increased responsibility on the chair, and has frequently led to divisive debates about whether rough consensus has in fact been correctly identified.
Although the consensus decision-making process should, ideally, identify and address concerns and reservations early, proposals do not always garner full consensus from the decision-making body. When a call for consensus on a motion is made, a dissenting delegate has one of three options:
- Group members who are willing to let a motion pass but desire to register their concerns with the group may choose "declare reservations." If there are significant reservations about a motion, the decision-making body may choose to modify or re-word the proposal.11
- A "stand aside" may be registered by a group member who has a "serious personal disagreement" with a proposal, but is willing to let the motion pass. Although stand asides do not halt a motion, it is often regarded as a strong "nay vote" and the concerns of group members standing aside are usually addressed by modifications to the proposal. Stand asides may also be registered by users who feel they are incapable of adequately understanding or participating in the proposal.121314
- Any group member may "block" a proposal. In most models, a single block is sufficient to stop a proposal, although some measures of consensus may require more than one block (''see'' previous section, "If Consensus Is Not Unanimous, Who Must Agree?" ). Blocks are generally considered to be an extreme measure, only used when a member feels a proposal "endanger the organization or its participants, or violate[s the mission of the organization" (i.e., a principled objection). In some consensus models, a group member opposing a proposal must work with its proponents to find a solution that will work for everyone.15
Critics of consensus decision-making often observe that the process, while potentially effective for small groups of motivated or trained individuals with a sufficiently high degree of affinity, has a number of possible shortcomings, notably:
- : In decision-making bodies that use formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would like it to change. 16
- : Giving the right to block proposals to all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible minority or individual. Furthermore,"opposing such obstructive behaviour be construed as an attack on freedom of speech and in turn [harden] resolve on the part of the individual to defend his or her position."17 As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the least accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating.
- ''', the most dramatic being the Abilene Paradox . In the Abilene paradox, a group can unanimously agree on a course of action that no individual member of the group desires because no one individual is willing to go against the perceived will of the decision-making body.18
- : Since consensus decision-making focuses on discussion and seeks the input of all participants, it can be a time-consuming process. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions need to be made speedily or where it is not possible to canvass the opinions of all delegates in a reasonable period of time. Additionally, the time commitment required to engage in the consensus decision-making process can sometimes act as a barrier to participation for individuals unable or unwilling to make the commitment.19
|
