E-Consensus/Toolbox ConsensusDecisionMaking/AgenDa
What is Consensus Decision Making?
A group of people working together can use an Internet mailing list to coordinate their work, and to reach decisions together based on consensus. Consensus is a decision making process designed to bring together the views of all the members of the group. Consensus does not require everyone to agree on everything, it does require a common goal of the group and willingness to work on problems together.
Consensus works if the group can work openly and creatively with concerns of individuals about proposals. The group reshapes proposals until everyone is comfortable with them.
Consensus is based on the philosophy that the process of making decisions is key part of the decision. Good process means that people's concerns are taken into the decision, that the process empowers people and that everyone as an opportunity to shape the decision.
Contents
Guidelines for online Consensus Decision Making
Introduction
A mailing list provides several advantages over other forms of communication:
- Proposals can be easily circulated via email.
- It is not necessary for all members to be physically present in the same place, at the same time, in order to reach decisions; decisions can therefore be discussed whenever the need arises, with all involved taking part.
Mailing list archives provide a public record of discussions and their outcomes, rendering the group transparent and accountable. They make the cultural capital of the group available to many, as a resource for newcomers and for other groups. The group’s membership may change, but its accumulated knowledge is not lost. Archives are especially valuable for volunteer organizations, since they allow new members equal access to the details of the organisation’s internal history, and because, by promoting openness, they nurture trust.
- Mailing lists can prevent the syndrome in which one needs to be in the right place at the right time, when a decision is being discussed, in order to have power over that decision. If important decisions must be taken by means of an open process on a mailing list (as opposed to, say, at a dinner to which a few friends have been invited), all members of the group can exercise their power in taking those decisions. This makes it less likely that hidden power structures will arise, or that power will be concentrated in the hands of a few people. A mailing list lends itself particularly well to decision-making by consensus.
The main advantages of consensus decision-making over voting are:
- It requires less effort, because there is no need to tally votes or to make sure that everyone has voted.
- In voting, those whose vote is overruled by the majority are effectively stripped of their responsibility for a decision. In a consensus-based process, those who disagree, but choose to stand aside, have equal responsibility for the decision taken. They retain their dignity, and exercise their power in the very act of standing aside.
A consensus-based process provides a strong incentive to understand each other’s points of view, to negotiate, and to compromise, because the minority is as powerful as the majority.
- By the same token, it allows lucid nonconformists to block decisions that are motivated by conformism.
This document outlines a simple process for reaching decisions in this manner; working groups may adapt this process to their needs.
The process described here can only work if there are clear criteria for determining who has the right to participate in it. 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, and for issues that are felt to require the group’s attention.
The Process
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
Consensus is slow. A talented or aggressive chairperson in a voting group can push through many decisions in a relatively short period. In a hierarchy model, a manager can assign tasks. Even the best facilitator can only move decisions at the speed of the most reluctant participant. A good facilitator will use the group's imagination to resolve concerns quickly, but without time, there is no way to get the understanding of obstacles – which is necessary to progress.
- Consensus has limits. As groups get large consensus becomes more difficult. Unlike voting, where radical minorities can be permanently excluded (the "loyal opposition" effect), consensus requires a base level
of agreement on the purpose of the group to progress. If people have fundamentally different desires, consensus may be impossible.
Advantages
- Better quality decisions (they last longer and are less controversial).
- Consensus reflects everyone's view.
- Proposal comes from the group. The original author is no longer significant group reformulates it to deal with concerns; the group makes the proposal its own.
- Everyone has a stake. Unlike a voting model, no one can walk away from a consensus decision and say, "I never liked that idea, I'm not going to do my part." (This is no guarantee another excuse won't arise).
- Less confrontational. Arguments arc cut short, either by the facilitator, or by the realization of the fighting parties that progress depends on agreement and conflict serves neither.
- Facilitates listening. Because concerns must be addressed, you can't afford to ignore someones input. This enhances understanding.
Handbooks
How to implement consensus in the decision making process of your organisation? There are several very useful handbooks:
Meetings, consensus decision making, methods of organising. Part of the activist toolbox by the UK based activist art group UHC collective.
On Conflict and Consensus on Formal Consensus decisionmaking by by C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein
Handbook on Direct Democracy and CBDM process by the Zhaba collective
Activism: Peace: NVCD: Consensus Process by activism.net
SHUT THE FUCK UP: or, How to act better in meetings - on gender bias in meetings - White male hetero's should read this.