A SHORT GUIDE TO CONSENSUS BUILDING An Alternative to Robert's Rules of Order for Groups, Organizations and Ad Hoc Assemblies that Want to Operate By Consensus Let's compare what this Short Guide has to say with what Robert's Rules of Order requires. Assume that a few dozen people have gotten together, on their own, at a community center because they are upset with a new policy or program recently announced by their local officials. After several impassioned speeches, someone suggests that the group appoint a moderator to "keep order" and ensure that the conversation proceeds effectively. Someone else wants to know how the group will decide what to recommend after they are done debating. "Will they vote?" this person wants to know. At this point, everyone turns to Joe, who has had experience as a moderator. Joe moves to the front of the room and explains that he will follow Robert's Rules of Order. From that moment on, the conversation takes on a very formal tone. Instead of just saying what's on their mind, everyone is forced to frame suggestions in the cumbersome form of "motions." These have to be "seconded." Efforts to "move the question" are proceeded by an explanation from Joe about what is and isn't an acceptable way of doing this. Proposals to "table" various items are considered, even though everyone hasn't had a chance to speak. Ultimately, all-or-nothing votes are the only way the group seems able to make a decision. As the hour passes, fewer and fewer of those in attendance feel capable of expressing their views. They don't know the rules, and they are intimidated. Every once in a while, someone makes an effort to re-state the problem or make a suggestion, but they are shouted down. ("You're not following Robert's Rules!") No one takes responsibility for ensuring that the concerns of everyone in the room are met, especially the needs of those individuals who are least able to present their views effectively. After an hour or so, many people have left. A final proposal is approved by a vote of 55 percent to 45 percent of those remaining. If the group had followed the procedures spelled out in this Short Guide to Consensus Building, the meeting would have been run differently and the result would probably have been a lot more to everyone's liking. The person at the front of the room would have been a trained facilitator -- a person with mediation skills -- not a moderator with specialized knowledge about how motions should be made or votes should be taken. His or her job would have been to get agreement at the outset on how the group wanted to proceed. Then, the facilitator or mediator would have focused on producing an agreement that could meet the underlying concerns of everyone in the room. No motions, no arcane rituals, no vote at the end. Instead, the facilitator would have pushed the group to brainstorm (e.g. " Can anyone propose a way of proceeding that meets all the interests we have heard expressed thus far?" ) After as thorough consideration of options as time permitted, the facilitator would ask: "Is there anyone who can't live with the last version of what has been proposed?" "If so, what improvement or modification can you suggest that will make it more acceptable to you, while continuing to meet the interests of everyone else with a stake in the issue?" What's Wrong With Robert's Rules? Robert's Rules of Order was first published in 1870. It was based on the rules and practices of Congress, and presumed that parliamentary procedures (and majority rule) offered the most appropriate model for any and all groups. The author presumed that the Rules of Order would "assist an assembly in accomplishing the work for which it was designed" by "restraining the individual" so that the interests of the group could be met. [Cite] In the more than 125 years since Robert's Rules was first published, many other approaches to group work and organizational activity have emerged. The goal of this Guide and the full Handbook is to codify the "best possible advice" to groups and organizations that prefer to operate with broad support, by consensus, rather than simply by majority rule. When we say consensus, we do not mean unanimity (although seeking unanimity is often a good idea). We believe that something greater than a bare majority achieved through voting is almost always more desirable than majority rule. Moreover, the formalism of parliamentary procedure is particularly unsatisfying and often counterproductive, getting in the way of common sense solutions. It relies on insider knowledge of the rules of the game. It does not tap the full range of facilitative skills of group leaders. And, it typically leaves many stakeholders (often something just short of a majority) angry and disappointed, with little or nothing to show for their efforts. Even with these weaknesses, many social groups and organizations, especially in community settings, adhere to Robert's Rules (by referencing them in their by-laws or articles of incorporation) because they have no other option. The Short Guide to Consensus Building (and the Handbook on which it is based) offers an alternative that builds on several decades of experience with effective consensus building techniques and strategies. No longer must groups and organizations settle for Robert's Rules of Order or parliamentary procedure when they would be better off with an alternative that puts the emphasis on cooperation and consensus. Definitions In order to explain what has been learned about consensus building over the past several decades, certain terms are important. Indeed, they are central to the presentation in this Short Guide. They are not part of everyday language and, thus, require some explanation. The key terms we will define are consensus, facilitation, mediation, recording, convening, conflict assessment, single text procedure, creating and claiming value, maximizing joint gains, and circles of stakeholder involvement. These definitions have been developed over the past two decades. There is still not complete agreement among dispute resolution professionals about how they should be defined; so, where important disagreements remain, we will point them out. Here are the most important definitions: Consensus (which does not mean unanimity) Consensus means overwhelming agreement. And, it is important that consensus be the product of a good-faith effort to meet the interests of all stakeholders. The key indicator of whether or not a consensus has been reached is that everyone agrees they can live with the final proposal; that is, after every effort has been made to meet any outstanding interests. Thus, consensus requires that someone frame a proposal after listening carefully to everyone's interests. Interests, by the way, are not the same as positions or demands. Demands and positions are what people say they must have, but interests are the underlying needs or reasons that explain why they take the positions that they do. Most consensus building efforts set out to achieve unanimity. Along the way, however, it often becomes clear that there are holdouts -- people who believe that their interests will be better served by remaining outside the emerging agreement. Should the rest of the group throw in the towel? No, this would invite blackmail (i.e. outrageous demands that have nothing to do with the issues under discussion). Most dispute resolution professionals believe that groups or assemblies should seek unanimity, but settle for overwhelming agreement that goes as far as possible toward meeting the interests of all stakeholders. It is absolutely crucial that this definition of success be clear at the outset. Facilitation (a way of helping groups work together in meetings) Facilitation is a management skill. When people are face-to-face, they need to talk and to listen. When there are several people involved, especially if they don't know each other or they disagree sharply, getting the talking, listening, deciding sequence right is hard. Often, it is helpful to have someone who has no stake in the outcome assist in managing the conversation. Of course, a skilled group member can, with the concurrence of the participants, play this role, too. As the parties try to collect information, formulate proposals, defend their views, and take account of what others are saying, a facilitator reminds them of the ground rules they have adopted and, much like a referee, intervenes when someone violates the ground rules. The facilitator is supposed to be nonpartisan or neutral. There is some disagreement in various professional circles about the extent to which an effective facilitator needs to be someone from outside the group. Certainly in a corporate context, work teams have traditionally relied on the person "in charge" to play a facilitative role. The concept of facilitative leadership is growing in popularity. Even work teams in the private sector, however, are turning more and more to skilled outsiders to provide facilitation services. In the final analysis, there is reason to believe that a stakeholder might use facilitative authority to advance his or her own interests at the expense of the others. Mediation (a way of helping parties deal with strong disagreement) While facilitators do most of their work "at the table" when the parties are face-to-face, mediators are often called upon to work with the parties before, during, and after their face-to-face meetings. While all mediators are skilled facilitators; not all facilitators have been trained to mediate. The classic image of the mediator comes from the labor relations field when the outside "neutral" shuttles back-and-forth between labor and management, each of which has retreated to a separate room as the strike deadline looms. These days, mediators work in an extraordinarily wide range of conflict situations. Mediation is both a role and a group management skill. A group leader may have mediation skills and may be able to broker agreement by putting those skills to use. But, again, when the search for innovative solutions rests in the hands of one of the parties, it is often hard for the others to believe that the leader/mediator isn't trying to advance his or her own interests at their expense. The big debate in professional circles is whether any mediator really can (or should) be neutral. The referee in a sporting match must be nonpartisan; he or she can't secretly be working for one team. The referee tries to uphold the rules of the game to which everyone has agreed. This is what is commonly meant by neutrality -- nonpartisanship. However, some people have argued that a mediator should not be indifferent to blatant unfairness. They believe that the mediator should not turn a blind eye to potentially unfair or unimplementable agreements, even if the "rules of the game" have not been violated. Yet, if a mediator intervenes on behalf of a party that may be about to "give away the store," why should the others accept that mediator's help? The answer probably depends on the level of confidence the parties have in the mediator and the terms of the mediator's contract with the group. Before the parties in a consensus building process come together, mediators (or facilitators) can play an important part in helping to identify the right participants, assist them in setting an agenda and clarifying the ground rules by which they will operate, and even in "selling" recalcitrant parties on the value to them of participating. Once the process has begun, mediators (and facilitators) try to assist the parties in their efforts to generate a creative resolution of differences. During these discussions or negotiations, a mediator may accompany a representative back to a meeting with his or her constituents to explain what has been happening. The mediator might serve as a spokesperson for the process if the media are following the story. A mediator might (with the parties' concurrence) push them to accept an accord (because they need someone to blame for forcing them to back-off the unreasonable demands they made at the outset). Finally, the mediator may be called upon to monitor implementation of an agreement and re-assemble the parties to review progress or deal with perceived violations or a failure to live up to commitments. "Facilitation" and "mediation" are often used interchangeably. We think the key distinction is that facilitators work mostly with parties once they are "at the table" while mediators do that as well as handle the pre-negotiation and post-negotiation tasks described above. Some professionals have both sets of skills, many do not. Neither form of consensus build assistance requires stakeholders to give up their authority or their power to decide what is best for them. Recording (creating a visual record of what a group has discussed and decided) Recording involves skills that seek to ensure that a visual record is created that captures the key points of agreement and disagreement during a dialogue. Some facilitators and mediators work in teams with one person specializing in keeping a written record of what the group has discussed and what has been agreed. This can be done on large sheets of paper, often called flipcharts, tacked up in front of a room. With the introduction of new computer and multi-media technologies, this can be done electronically as well. The important thing is to have an on-going visual representation of what the group has discussed and agreed. Unlike formal minutes of a meeting, a group memory may use drawings, illustrations, maps, or other icons to help people recall what they have discussed. Visual records prepared by a recorder ultimately need to be turned into written meeting summaries. Like minutes, these summaries must be reviewed in draft by all participants to ensure that everyone agrees with the review of what happened. Convening (bringing parties together) Convening, or the gathering together of parties for a meeting or a series of meetings, is not a skill that depends on training. An agency or organization that has decided to host a consensus building process (and wants to encourage others to participate) can play an important convening role. In a private firm, for example, a senior official might be the convenor. In the public arena, a regulatory agency might want to convene a public involvement process. There is some disagreement about whether or not the convenor or the convening organization is obliged to stay "at the table" as the conversation proceeds. In general, convening organizations want to be part of the dialogue, but we do not feel they must commit to on-going participation in a consensus building process. Someone has to finance a consensus building process. When it takes place inside an existing organization, financial arrangements are reasonably straight forward. When consensus building involves a wide range of groups in an ad hoc assembly, it is much less obvious who can and will provide the financial support. If costs are not shared equally by the parties, for example, if they are covered by the convening organization, there are special steps that must be taken to ensure that the outside facilitator or mediator has a contract with the entire group, and not just the convenor, and that the organization(s) providing the financing do not use that sponsorship to dictate the outcome. Conflict Assessment (an essential convening step) A conflict assessment is a document that spells out what the issues are, who the stakeholding interests are, where they disagree and where they might find common ground. It is usually prepared by a neutral outsider based on confidential interviews with key stakeholders. There is some disagreement over whether the same neutral who prepared the conflict assessment should then be the one to facilitate or mediate, if the process goes forward. Typically, after interviewing the obvious stakeholders as well as the less obvious participants suggested by the first group, a neutral party will suggest whether or not it makes sense to go forward with a consensus building process, and if so, how the process ought to be structured. Such an assessment can be presented orally to the convenor, but it is probably better that it be written and distributed in draft to everyone interviewed, before it is finalized. The recommendations resulting from a conflict assessment are not the final word. Only the stakeholders themselves can decide whether or not they want to proceed, and, if so, how they want to organize the effort. Single Text Procedure (A way to generate agreement) Roger Fisher, Bill Ury, and Bruce Patton, in their well-known book, Getting to Yes, first suggested the phrase "single text" negotiation. Rather than having each party propose its own version of an ideal agreement, a neutral party carries a single version of a possible agreement from party to party seeking "improvements" that will make it acceptable to the next person on the list. (No one needs to know who suggested which modifications along the way.) It is also possible to work together in a meeting to collectively revise a single text, although in that setting it is more likely that some parties will find it harder to accept a proposed "improvement" because they know who it came from. Creating and Claiming Value (a way to maximize joint gains) Our colleagues, Howard Raiffa, in his book The Art and Science of Negotiation, and Jim Sebenius and David Lax, in their book, The Manager as Negotiator, have helped to popularize the idea of "creating value." Most people think of negotiation or problem solving as a "zero sum" game in which a fixed amount is allocated among competing parties. An efficient agreement, therefore, is presumed to be one in which all the gains available have been allocated among the parties. This tends to overlook the fact that there are numerous ways to "make the pie larger" in most situations. Thus, an efficient agreement is really one in which the parties have done all they can to create value as well as allocated all the value they have created. Lax and Sebenius describe what they call, "the negotiator's dilemma" as the key problem facing everyone in a consensus building or dispute resolution process. How should they manage the tension between creating and claiming value? This tension results from the fact that creating value requires cooperative behaviors while claiming value revolves almost entirely around competition. Given that everyone in a group process has what are called "mixed motives" (that is, they want the pie to be as large as possible, but they also want as much for themselves or their side as they can get), they've got to figure out how much to cooperate and how hard to compete. There is some disagreement among experienced practitioners about how likely it is that value can be created in every situation. On the one hand, those who are generally optimistic assume that value can almost always be created by trading across issues that parties value differently (e.g., "I'll give you this (which is not that important to me), if you'll give me that (which you don't care that much about"). Even in a situation in which there appears to be just one issue -- price -- under discussion, there are ways to "fractionate" the issue (i.e., break it into parts that can be traded) or to link that issue to future considerations. Those who are generally pessimistic assume that there are severe restrictions on the possibility of creating value in many situations, either because there's nothing to trade or because asymmetries in power allow one side to demand what it wants or walk away. We want to differentiate the idea of maximizing joint gain from the simpleminded language of "win-win" negotiating. We are interested in helping parties do better than what no agreement probably holds in store for them. Doing better than one's BATNA (Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement) is the way to measure success in consensus building. There are few, if any situations, where everyone can get everything they want (which is what "winning" sounds like to us). Circles of Stakeholder Involvement (a strategy for identifying representative stakeholders) A stakeholder is a person or group likely to be affected by (or who thinks they will be affected by) a decision -- whether it is their decision to make or not. When we talk about circles of stakeholders -- we are talking about individuals or groups that want or ought to be involved in decisionmaking, but at different levels of intensity. Some stakeholders are very hard to represent in an organized way. Think about "future generations," for example. Who can represent them in a dialogue about sustainable development? In the law, various strategies have evolved so that surrogates or stand-ins can present hard-to-represent groups (like the members of a class of consumers who have been hurt by a certain product or like children who have no capacity to speak for themselves in a court proceeding). Sometimes, it is necessary to caucus all the groups or individuals who think they represent a certain set of stakeholders for the purposes of selecting a representative for a particular dialogue or problem solving purpose. Such meetings typically need to be facilitated by an outside party. Finally, there are various statutes that govern who may and who must be invited to participate in various public and private dialogues. Ad hoc consensus building processes must take these laws into account. A Complete Matrix The fold out matrix that follows provides an overview of all the elements contained in the three parts of the Short Guide. Part I contains a set of procedures that should be used when a group will be meeting for a short period of time or when a temporary or ad hoc assembly of stakeholders is organized for a single purpose. The procedures in the first Part are organized under five steps. While these are presented in more or less chronological fashion, they do not necessarily need to be applied sequentially. Part II of the Guide focuses on the interaction of participants involved in a permanent group or organization. The suggestions in Part II build on (and are presented in contrast to) what we have suggested for temporary or ad hoc assemblies. Part II deals with consensus building in situations where the parties or their organizations expect to interact indefinitely -- like the Board of Directors of a company or the members of a city council. Even if the participants change (and they surely will over time), everyone knows that whether they personally stay involved or not, others who come after them will have to live with the impact of what occured and they take responsiblity for the long-term interest of the organization. Part II covers the same five steps as Part I but highlights several important differences between temporary and permanent situations. Also, a sixth step is added, when groups are on-going, to take account of the need to capture whatever has been learned so that the organization can continue to improve. Part III of the Short Guide anticipates serious obstacles to consensus building and suggests procedures for handling them, regardless of whether the participants are involved in an ad hoc or a permanent interaction. PART I. HELPING AN AD HOC ASSEMBLY REACH AGREEMENT We have identified five steps in the consensus building process: convening, clarifying responsibilities, deliberating, deciding, and implementing agreements. The key problems for ad hoc assemblies (as opposed to permanent entities) are organizational. Selecting the relevant stakeholders, finding individuals who can represent those interests effectively getting agreement on groundrules and an agenda , and securing funding are particularly difficult when the participants have no shared history and may have few, if any, interests in common. STEP 1 -- CONVENING 1.1 Initiate a Discussion About Whether to Have a Consensus Building Dialogue Every consensus building effort needs to be initiated by someone or some group in a position to bring the key stakeholders together. 1.2 Prepare a Written Conflict Assessment 1.2.1. Assign Responsibility for Preparing the Conflict Assessment Responsibility for preparing a written conflict assessment should be assigned to a neutral party. A contract for this work should be made between the convening entity and a neutral service provider. The convenor should consult informally with other key parties in making the selection of a qualified conflict assessor. 1.2.2. Identify a First Circle of Essential Participants The convenor and the conflict assessor should identify the obvious categories of stakeholders with an interest in the issue or the dispute, as well as individuals or organizations who can represent those views. These are the individuals who should be interviewed at the outset of a conflict assessment. Each interviewee should receive a promise that nothing he or she says will be attributed to them or their organization, orally or in writing. 1.2.3 Identify a Second Circle of Suggested Participants The first set of interviewees in a conflict assessment process should be asked to help identify a second round of individuals or organizations who might be able to contribute to or in some way block a consensus building effort. These individuals and organizations should be interviewed in the same manner as the first circle of participants. 1.2.4 Complete Initial Interviews When individuals are interviewed for the assessment, whether by phone or in person, as part of a conflict assessment, they ought to be given an opportunity to review a written summary of what the assessor compiles as a result of the interview. 1.2.5 Prepare a Draft Conflict Assessment A draft conflict assessment ought to include a clear categorization of all the relevant stakeholders, a summary of the interests and concerns of each category (without attribution to any individual or organization), an analysis of what the agenda, timetable and budget might be for a consensus building process, given the results of the interviews, and a proposal as to whether or not the assessor thinks it is worth going forward with a consensus building process. 1.2.6 Prepare a Final Conflict Assessment Everyone interviewed as part of the preparation of a conflict assessment ought to receive a copy of the draft conflict assessment and be given adequate time to offer comments and suggestions. The assessor ought to use this period as an occasion to modify the final conflict assessment in a way that will allow all the key stakeholders to agree to attend at least an organizational meeting, if a recommendation to go forward is accepted by the convening entity. The final conflict assessment ought to include an appendix listing the name of every individual and organization interviewed. In appropriate instances, the final conflict assessment ought to become a public document. If key stakeholding groups refuse to participate, even in just one organizational discussion to discuss the conflict assessment, the process can not go forward. 1.2.7 Convene an Organizational Meeting to Consider the Recommendations of the Conflict Assessment 1.3 If a Decision Is Made to Proceed, Identify Appropriate Representatives Stakeholder groups and organizations should be invited to identify their own spokespeople. These are the individuals who should be invited to the organizational session. 1.3.1 Identify Missing Actors Likely to Affect the Credibility of the Process If a decision to proceed is made at the organizational meeting, everyone in attendance ought to review the make-up of the group and try to identify missing actors whose absence would be likely to affect the credibility of a consensus building process. Those in attendance (in response to invitations from the convening entity), should work together to identify ways of identifying appropriate individuals to add to the group. 1.3.2 Use Facilitated Caucusing If Necessary If the members of a stakeholder category are quite diffuse, or if the representation (i.e. selection of a spokesperson) of one category of stakeholders is challenged by another, a process of facilitated caucuses should be initiated. At such sessions -either by invitation (from the convenor) or on an open basis -- individuals or groups willing to represent a category of stakeholders can be selected by the relevant stakeholders. They should use super-majority voting (e.g. 65%) or select a representative by unanimous acclaim. It is often helpful to have a neutral facilitator or mediator organize and manage such caucusing sessions. Facilitated caucusing is the best way for a category of stakeholders to answer a charge made by others that their selection of a representative was flawed. 1.3.3 Use Proxies to Represent Hard-to-Represent Groups If the participants in a consensus building process decide that it is important to find a way to represent a hard-to-represent or diffuse group, they may decide to invite proxy individuals or organizations to represent those interests. Representation by proxy must be agreed upon by all the other groups and inviduals who agreed to participate, as must the selection of specific individuals or organizations who agree to accept such an assignment. Proxy representatives must agree to do their best to "speak for" a hard-to-represent category of stakeholders. 1.3.4 Identify Possible Alternate Representatives If a consensus building process is likely to extend over several months or years, participants may decide to appoint alternates to stand in for them on occasion. The role and responsibility of alternates should be carefully defined in writing. Alternates who attend on a regular basis, when their regular representative is also present, may be asked to play a less active role or to accept other restrictions on their involvement. 1.4 Locate the necessary funding There are almost always costs associated with convening, preparing a conflict assessment, and implementing a consensus building process, if that is what the stakeholders decide to do. Sometimes these costs can be subsumed within the existing budgets of the convenor and the participating stakeholders. Other times, funds have to be raised specfically to underwrite the consensus building effort. STEP 2 -- CLARIFYING RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 Clarify the Roles of Facilitators, Mediators, and Recorders 2.1.1 Select and Specify Responsibilities of a Facilitator or a Mediator If a trained facilitator or mediator is going to be asked to assist the parties in a consensus building effort, it is important to select an appropriate individual acceptable to all the key stakeholders. It is also important to clarify, in writing, the facilitator's or mediator's responsibilities to the group. These services can be provided by an individual or a team. 2.1.2 Select and Specify the Responsibilities of a Recorder A qualified recorder, if one is to be hired, must work in tandem with a facilitator or a mediator. The recorder also needs a written indication of his or her obligations to the group. Usually, the recorder works with any other neutrals involved to produce draft meeting summaries. In general, written summaries of all group decisions, as well as highlights of the dialogue (i.e., points of agreement and disagreement), should be circulated after each meeting for group approval. 2.1.3 Form An Executive Committee If there are more than two categories of stakeholders involved in a consensus building effort (i.e., environmentalists, business interests, unions, etc.), it is useful to appoint an Executive Committee (with one person selected by each major category of stakeholders) to make decisions between meetings, approve the allocation of funds to support the effort, and be available to the facilitator or the mediator if logistical decisions must be made between meetings. 2.1.4 Consider the Value of a Chair Even if a facilitator or a mediator is involved, it is helpful to appoint a chair (either of the Executive Committee or of the full assembly). This position can rotate if the dialogue goes on for an extended period. The primary responsibility of the Chair is to represent the process to the world-at-large. It is also appropriate to assign this function to the mediator or the facilitator and to forgo the appointment of a Chair. 2.2.6 Set Rules Regarding the Participation of Observers Some consensus building processes will proceed on a confidential basis, depending on the content of the discussions. Many will proceed in a very public way. If sessions are open to the public, the rights and obligations of observers should be spelled out in writing as part of the ground rules endorsed by the participants. It is not inappropriate to allow observers a brief comment period at the end of some or all formal sessions. In some instances, uninvited observers may even be offered a larger role. It is crucial that rules governing the participation of observers be posted prior to any and all meetings and that they be enforced consistently by the facilitator, mediator, or chair. It is also important to take account of legal requirements regarding the used of closed meetings when public officials are involved. 2.3 Set an Agenda and Ground Rules 2.3.1 Get Agreement on the Range of Issues to be Discussed If the agenda for a consensus building process is drawn too narrowly, some potential participants may have a good reason not to come to the table. If it is drawn too broadly, other participants will become discouraged, and may drop out, because the task facing the group seems overwhelming. While it is possible to add issues along the way (in response to new developments in the dialogue) and with the agreement of the full group, it is important to get concurrence on a sufficiently rich but manageable agenda at the outset. The completion of a conflict assessment, based on confidential interviews, is the best way to pinpoint the most important items to include on a consensus building agenda. 2.3.2 Specify a Timetable It is important to be realistic about the amount of time it will take for a group that is not used to working together to reach agreement on the items to include on a complex work agenda. At the outset, a great deal of a group's time is usually spent clarifying procedural matters. Under such circumstances it is often necessary to "go slow to go fast." That is, it is not a good idea to rush through early procedural matters to get to the most difficult issues on the agenda. Early exchanges on peripheral issues may offer a good opportunity to begin building relationships and establishing trust. Success along these lines will provide a foundation on which the group can build. It is important for the full group to participate in setting a realistic timetable. In some instances, a group might be forced to set a target date for completion, and then build a work plan that fits that timetable. 2.3.3 Finalize Procedural Ground rules The final version of the conflict assessment should contain a set of suggested ground rules. These should address procedural concerns raised in the interviews undertaken by the assessor. The suggested ground rules should be reviewed and ratified at the opening organizational meeting. Most ground rules for consensus building cover a range of topics including (a) the rights and responsibilities of participants, (b) behavioral guidelines that participants will be expected to follow, (c) rules governing interaction with the media, (d) decision-making procedures, and (e) strategies for handling disagreement and ensuring implementation of an agreement if one is reached. 2.3.4 Require All Participants to Sign the Ground Rules At the outset of any consensus building process, every participant should be expected to sign the ground rules agreed to by the group. Copies of these ground rules should be sent directly to every organization or group that has designated a representative to participate in the process. Observers should be asked to sign the ground rules before they are allowed to attend meetings -- even those open to the public. 2.3.5 Clarify the Extent to Which Precedents Are or Are Not Being Set One of the reasons people engage in consensus building efforts is to formulate tailored solutions to whatever problem, issue or dispute they face. It is important that the participants in these processes feel free to generate plans or solutions that fit their unique circumstances. If everyone agrees that no precedent will be set, it is usually easier to convince reluctant groups or organizations to participate. Moreover, this allows future consensus building processes to proceed unimpeded. 2.4 Assess Computer-based Communication Options Determine how computer techologies will be used during deliberations. Create e-mail mailing lists, web-based conferencing capabilities, and listservers as needed. Assess participant access to computers and internet connections and respond appropriately to any disparities that exist. 2.5. Establish a Mailing List Once a consensus building process is underway, some groups or individuals eligible to participate may decide not to attend on a regular basis, or not to participate at all. These individuals, as well as any other members of a stakeholder organization or category, should be added to a mailing list so that they can receive either periodic progress reports or regular meeting summaries. STEP 3 --- DELIBERATING 3.1 Pursue Deliberations in a Constructive Fashion 3.1.1 Express Concerns in an Unconditionally Constructive Manner It is important to maintain a problem-solving orientation, even in the face of strong differences and personal antagonism. It is in every participant's best interest to behave in a fashion they would like others to follow. Concerns or disagreement should be expressed in an unconditionally constructive manner. That is, there should be a premium on reason-giving and explanation. Those who disagree with the direction in which the discussion is headed should always explain the basis for their disagreement. 3.1.2 Never Trade Interests for Relationships No one in a consensus building process should be pressed to give up the pursuit of their best interests in response to the "feelings" or the "best interests" of the group. Thus, no one should be asked to give up their interests to ensure harmony or the success of the process. 3.1.3 Engage in Active Listening Participants in every consensus building process should be encouraged (indeed, instructed, if necessary) to engage in what is known as active listening -- a procedure for checking to be sure that communications are being heard as intended. 3.1.4 Disagree Without Being Disagreeable Participants in every consensus building process should be instructed to "disagree without being disagreeable." This dictum should probably be included in the group's written ground rules. 3.1.5 Strive for the Greatest Degree of Transparency Possible To the greatest extent possible, consensus building processes should be transparent. That is, the group's mandate, its agenda and ground rules, the list of participants and the groups or interests they are representing, the proposals they are considering, the decision rules they have adopted, their finances, and their final report should, at an appropriate time, be open to scrutiny by anyone affected by the group's recommendations. 3.2 Separate Inventing From Committing 3.2.1 Strive to Invent Options for Mutual Gain The goals of a consensus building process ought to be to create as much value as possible and to ensure that whatever value is created be divided in ways that take account of all relevant considerations. The key to creating value is to invent options for mutual gain. This is best done by separating inventing from committing -- engaging in cooperative behaviors that "make the pie larger" before giving in to competitive pressures "to get the most for one's self." 3.2.2 Emphasize Packaging The best way to create value is by packaging multiple issues and sub-issues. If parties "trade" items or options that they value differently and bundle them together properly, they ought to be able to help most, if not all, stakeholders exceed the value of their most likely "walk away" option. If that is not possible, than no agreement is likely; indeed, agreement may well be inappropriate. 3.2.3 Test Options by Playing the Game of "What If?" The most important technique for creating value is the exploration of options and packages using "what if?" questions. Sometimes these are best asked by a neutral party (and sometimes they may need to be asked confidentially) before stakeholders will feel comfortable answering them. 3.3 Create SubCommittees and Seek Expert Advice 3.3.1 Formulate Joint Fact-finding Procedures If left to their own devices, the participants in a consensus building process will produce their own version of the relevant facts (or technical data) consistent with their definition of the problem and their sense of how the problem or issue should be handled. This often leads to what is called "adversary science." It is better if all the participants can agree on the information that ought to be used to answer unanswered or contested questions. An agreement on joint fact finding should specify (a) what information is sought, (b) how it should be generated (i.e., by whom and using which methods), and (c) how gaps or disagreements among technical sources will be handled. It is perfectly reasonable for there to be agreement on facts while substantial disagreement on how to interpret such facts remains. 3.3.2 Identify Expert Advisors It is often helpful to supplement ad hoc consensus building discussions with input from expert advisors. Such individuals should be selected with the concurrence of the participants, and in response to the needs of the group. Typically, a neutral party assisting the process should be in touch with expert advisors before, during, and after their involvement to ensure that they understand the objectives of the consensus building effort and that they offer their advice in a form that will be most helpful to the group. 3.3.3 Organize Drafting or Joint Fact-finding SubCommittees Joint fact-finding should be handled by a subcommittee or a working group appointed by the full set of participants in a consensus building process. Fact finding should be viewed as an opportunity to learn more about the issues under discussion; thus, not only the most technically sophisticated participants should be assigned to these subcommittees or working groups. Subcommittees should have a clear mandate. They should not be decision-making bodies; instead, they should bring information and alternative policy choices back to the full group. 3.3.4 Incorporate the Work of SubCommittees or Expert Advisors The findings of subcommittees or expert advisors should be viewed as only one input into a consensus building process. Differences in interpretation as well as conflicting interests among the participants often mean that the work of sub-committees or expert advisors will not lead to agreement. It is important, nevertheless, to tap the best available technical sources. 3.4 Use A Single Text Procedure 3.4.1 Draft Preliminary Proposals Often, the best way to focus a consensus building dialogue is to provide a set of preliminary proposals to focus the conversation. Each set of proposals should deal with an item on the agenda and present the widest possible range of ideas or options. Preliminary proposals can be prepared by the facilitator or the mediator. They can also be prepared by a proposal drafting sub-committee that includes members of each key category of stakeholders. Preliminary proposals are meant to focus conversation, not end it. 3.4.2 Brainstorm Brainstorming is an important step in a consensus building process. Whether undertaken by a sub-committee or the full group, brainstorming should seek to expand the range of proposals considered with regard to each agenda item. Brainstorming should also be used to generate packages that incorporate trade-offs among agenda items. 3.4.3 Withhold Criticism The best way to encourage brainstorming is to adopt a formal ground rule that urges participants to withhold criticism when new options are suggested. The withholding of criticism should not be viewed as an indication of support or agreement; it is, however, the best way to encourage creative thinking. 3.4.4 Avoid Attribution and Individual Authorship Consensus building is best viewed as a group enterprise. When individuals or a single group insists on claiming authorship of a particular proposal (i.e. in an effort to enhance its standing with its own consitutents), they are likely to provoke criticism or counter-proposals. Consensus is much more likely to emerge if participants avoid attributing or claiming authorship of specific ideas or packages. 3.4.5 Consolidate Improvements in the Text As the dialogue proceeds, participants should focus on "improving" a consolidated text prepared by a drafting subcommittee or a neutral party. Avoid competing texts that seek to maximize the interests of one or just a few parties. When changes to a text are made, do not indicate where they originated. All revisions to the single text need to be acceptable to the group as a whole. 3.4.6 Search for Contingent Options As the discussion proceeds, participants should search for ways of bridging differences by suggesting contingent agreements. Using an "if...then" format is likely to be helpful. That is, if a group is opposed to the prevailing draft of a recommendation or a consolidated agreement, then it should suggest the changes necessary for it to accept that proposal. 3.5 Modify the Agenda and Ground Rules (if necessary) 3.5.1 Reconsider the Responsibilities, Obligations and Sponsoring Agencies and Organizations Powers of During the course of a consensus building process it is not inappropriate to re-visit the assignment of responsibilities and obligations of sponsoring agencies and organizations set by the participants at the outset. Changes should only be made if consensus can be reached on suggested revisions. 3.5.2 Reconsider the Obligations and Powers of Late Arrivals During the course of a consensus building process, as unanticipated issues or concerns arise, it may be desirable to add new participants. With the concurrence of the group, representatives of new stakeholding groups -- attracted or recruited because of the emerging agreement or shifts in the agenda -- can be added. The obligations and powers of late comers (especially with regard to requesting that issues already covered be reconsidered), should be reconsidered by the full group upon the arrival of new participants. Changes in the agenda or the ground rules should only by made with the concurrence of all parties. 3.6 Complete Deliberations STEP 4 --- DECIDING 4.1 Try to Maximize Joint Gains 4.1.1 Test the Scope and Depth of any Agreement The results of every effort to maximize joints gain should be continuously assessed. This is best accomplished by having a neutral party ask whether the participants can think of any "improvements" to the proposed agreement. In addition, it is important to ask whether each representative is prepared to "sell" the proposal to his or her constituents and whether each can "live with" the group's recommendation. 4.1.2 Use Straw Polls Even groups that agree to operate by consensus (or unanimity for that matter!) may find straw polls helpful for testing the scope of agreement along the way. When such polling devices are employed, it is important, each time they are used, to explain that the results are intended to explore the scope agreement that has or has not been reached, and not to seek commitments. 4.1.3 Seek Unanimity It is appropriate to seek unanimity within the time frame set by a consensus building group. 4.1.4 Settle for An Overwhelming Level of Support It is appropriate to settle for an overwhelming level of support for a final recommendation or decision, if unanimity can not be achieved within the agreed upon time frame. While it is not possible to specify an exact percentage of support that would constitute an overwhelming endorsement, it would be very hard to make a claim for consensus having been reached if fewer than 90% of the participants in a group were not in agreement. 4.1.5 Make Every Effort to Satisfy the Concerns of Holdouts Prior to making its final recommendation or decision, a consensus building group should make one final attempt to satisfy the concerns of any remaining holdout(s). This can be done by asking those who "cannot live with" the final recommendation or decision to suggest a modification to the package or tentative agreement that would make it acceptable to them without making it less attractive to anyone who has already expressed support for it. 4.2 Keep a Record 4.2.1 Maintain a Visual Summary of Key Points of Agreement and Disagreement It is important for a recorder to keep a written record of a consensus building dialogue. This is best done in a form that is visually accessible to all participants throughout the process. It is not necessary to keep traditional minutes of all discussions as long as key points of agreement and disagreement are captured in writing. 4.2.2 Review Written Versions of All Decisions Before They Are Finalized A written draft of the final report of a consensus building process should be circulated to all participants before they are asked to indicate support or opposition. 4.2.3 Maintain a Written Summary of Every Discussion For Review by all Participants A written summary of every formal group discussion should be kept, even after a final report is produced by a consensus building group. Such an archive can be important to the credibility of the group's recommendation and can help to clarify the group's intent should problems of interpretation arise later. STEP 5 -- IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTS 5.1 Seek Ratification by Constituencies 5.1.1 Hold Representatives Responsible for Canvassing Constituent Responses to a Penultimate Draft The participants in a consensus building process should be asked to canvass the response of their constituents to the draft of the group's final report. Copies of the draft should be circulated with sufficient time for the members of the group or organization to let their representative know how the report might be improved. 5.1.2 Hold Representatives Responsible for Signing and Committing to a Final Agreement in their Own Name At the conclusion of a consensus building process, the participants should be asked to endorse the final report if there is one. Representatives should be responsible for endorsing the proposal in their own names even if their organization or group is not able to commit collectively. A signature should be interpreted as a commitment to do everything possible to assist with implementation, if an agreement was reached. 5.1.3 Include the Necessary Steps to Ensure that Agreements are Incorporated or Formal Mechanisms are Appropriate Informal Adopted by Whatever Often the results of a consensus building process are advisory. Sometimes they must be ratified by still another set of elected or appointed officials. Any agreement resulting from a consensus building process should contain within it a clear statement of the steps that will be taken to ensure that the informal agreement will be incorporated or adopted by whatever formal means are appropriate. For example, informally negotiated agreements can be stipulated as additional conditions when a permit granted by a government agency. This must be done according to the rules of the permitting agecy. 5.1.4 Incorporate Appropriate Monitoring Procedures Negotiated agreements must often be monitored to ensure implementation. Responsibilities and methods for overseeing implementation should be specified in the written report of any consensus building group. 5.1.5 Include Re-opener or Dispute Resolution Procedures Any agreement reached by a consensus building group should include within it a mechanism by which the participants can be re-assembled if a change in circumstances or a failure on the part of one or more participants to live up to their commitments suggests that another meeting is necessary. Appropriate dispute resolution procedures (and ways of activating them) should be described in the agreement or report. PART II HELPING A PERMANENT GROUP OR ORGANIZATION REACH AGREEMENT The same five consensus building steps apply when dealing with permanent groups, although there is a sixth step -- organizational learning -- that needs to be added. Permanent groups or organizations are likely to have well established decision-making procedures. This can be an advantage in that less time should be needed to reach agreement on how the group should operate . At the same time, resistance to change may be a new source of difficulty. An organization that has historically operated in a top-down management style, may have a heard time adapating to a consensus building approach. A shared commitment to the long-term well being of the organization, however, can provide common ground on which to build. STEP 1 -- CONVENING Key Differences: ------ Less of a problem getting started, routines are known Less mistrust of the convenor's motives (all part of the same group) Greater clarity about who needs to be involved Less difficulty launching a conflict assessment More experience with each other to build on STEP 2 -- CLARIFYING RESPONSIBILITIES Key Differences: -- Less inclined to use an external professional neutral unless an impasse is reached -- Greater acceptance of the legitimacy of other participants -- Less of a problem to clarify responsibilities because of past experience STEP 3 -- DELIBERATING Key Differences: --- More experience dealing with each other; could cut either way (making it easier or harder to reach consensus depending on past experience) -- More experienced with consensus building techniques -- Presumably improvements have been made based on past experience -- Involvement in long-term relationship might lead parties to put greater value on maximizing joint gains STEP 4 -- DECIDING Key Differences: -- Greater respect for needs of other parties; awareness that each person could be the odd-person-out the next time; may lead to an emphasis on reason giving and an appeal to objective criteria -- Commitments may be viewed with less skepticism because long-term relationships are in play (not necessarily) -- Impossible not to set at least informal precedent STEP 5 -- IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTS Key Differences: --- Long term relationships increase the focus on implementation --- Dispute resolution procedures may already be in place --- Past experience with each other may make it harder to get believable implementable agreements STEP 6 -- ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT Key differences: --- Clear need to invest in Organizational Learning --- Payoff of organizational development work is clear Invest in Organizational Learning For groups that will continue to work together, it is important to set aside time to reflect collectively on what can be learned from each episode in the group's history. Time should be set aside, periodically, to determine which features of the group's activities have worked well and which have not. Organizational learning can be assisted by qualified neutral parties. Invest in Organizational Development The lessons of organizational learning will not lead automatically to increased group capacity or improved decision-making. Training and other organizational development efforts must be made. These will require the time and attention of all participants to be effective. Organizational development can be assisted by qualified outside consultants. PART III. DEALING WITH THE BARRIERS TO CONSENSUS BUILDING Both temporary and permanent groups and organizations are likely to encounter certain predictable obstacles to consensus building. It is important that both groups handle these obstacles with great care. 7.0 Respond To Disruptive Behavior If a participant or an observer of a consensus building process acts in a disruptive manner, the facilitator, mediator, or chair -- whoever is managing the meeting -- should remind that individual of the procedural ground rules they signed. If that does not result in the desired change in their behavior, they should ask the participants with the closest ties to the disruptive party to intercede on behalf of the group. If that, too, fails to deter the disruptive individual, it may make sense to adjourn the meeting temporarily and allow the group as a whole to convince the disruptive person to either alter his or her behavior or leave. If that fails as well, participants should not be afraid to contact the relevant civil authorities and ask for assistance in removing the individual involved. 8.0 Accept An Advisory Role if that is All that is Allowed In many instances, both in the public arena and inside private organizations, consensus building groups are often granted only advisory, not decision-making, power. Formal decision-making may still reside with elected or appointed officials or officers. This need not diminish the contribution that a consensus building effort can make. From the standpoint of a decision-maker, it is always helpful to know which options or packages are likely to have the full support of all the relevant stakeholders. Moreover, if those with decision-making authority are involved in a consensus building effort -- or, at last, kept apprised of its progress -- they may feel sufficiently comfortable with the result to endorse it. 9.0 Clarify the Presumed Liability of the Participants If the participants in a consensus building process are dealing with confidential or proprietary information that could create legal liability, the scope of this liability should be stated in the invitation to participate extended by the convenor, and be explained in the ground rules governing the group's operations. 10.0 Clarify Confidentiality Arrangements There are legitimate reasons for consensus building processes, however public they may be, to adopt confidentiality arrangements. Both the arrangements and the rationale for adopting them should be spelled out in the group's ground rules. These arrangements must take account of open meeting and sunshine laws if public officials are involved. 11.0 Clarify Legal Obligations if the Participants are Simultaneously Involved in Pending Litigation If a consensus building effort is meant to resolve issues that are simultaneously the subject of litigation, the participants in the informal dialogue should be apprised (by counsel) of their legal rights and the impact that informal consensus building conversations might have on the legal proceedings, and vice versa. They should also approach the judge or adjucation body to talk about the best way of coordinating the two processes. 12. 0 Clarify the Extent to Which Precedents Are or Are Not Being Set One of the reasons people engage in consensus building efforts is to formulate tailored solutions to whatever problem, issue or dispute they face. It is important that the participants in these processes feel free to generate plans or solutions that fit their unique circumstances. If everyone agrees that no precedent will be set, it is usually easier to convince reluctant groups or organizations to participate. Moreover, this allows future consensus building processes to proceed unimpeded. Consensus Decision Making In this consensus briefing: Consensus decision making is a creative and dynamic way of reaching agreement between all members of a group. Instead of simply voting for an item and having the majority of the group getting their way, a group using consensus is committed to finding solutions that everyone actively supports, or at least can live with. This ensures that all opinions, ideas and concerns are taken into account. Through listening closely to each other, the group aims to come up with proposals that work for everyone. Consensus is neither compromise nor unanimity – it aims to go further by weaving together everyone’s best ideas and key concerns – a process that often results in surprising and creative solutions, inspiring both the individual and the group as whole. Pg.1 Pg.3 Pg.4 Pg.5 Pg.6 Pg.6 Pg.12 Pg.13 Pg.14 Pg.17 Pg.18 What’s wrong with democracy? Why use consensus? Conditions for consensus The consensus process The stages of consensus process Consensus flowchart Guidelines for taking part Quick decision making Consensus in large groups Large groups consensus flowchart Troubleshooting Consensus can work in all types of settings – small groups, local communities, businesses, even whole nations and territories. The exact process may differ depending on the size of the group and other factors, but the basic principles are the same. In the following briefing you’ll find lots of useful information, not only about the basics of consensus decision making, but also about how to apply it to large groups of people and about ideas for dealing with common problems. We also have a Short Guide to Consensus and you can find lots of tips on how to make your consensus meetings run smoothly in our guides to Facilitating Meetings. What’s wrong with the democracy we’ve got? How we make decisions is the key to how our society is organised. It influences every aspect of our lives including our places of work, local communities, health services, and even whether we live in war or peace. Many of us have been brought up to believe that the western-style system of voting is the highest form of democracy. Yet in the very nations which shout loudest about the virtues of democracy, many people don’t even bother to vote any more; they feel it doesn’t actually make any difference to their lives as most decisions are made by an elite of powerful politicians and business people. Representative democracies Power and decision making is taken away from ordinary people when they vote for leaders – handing over power to make decisions to a small elite with completely different interests from their own. Being allowed to vote 20 times in a lifetime for an MP or senator is a poor substitute for having the power ourselves to make the decisions that affect every aspect of our lives. In any case, there are many areas of society where democratic principles have little influence. Most institutions and work places are entirely hierarchical – students www.seedsforchange.org.uk 2010 and employees don’t usually get a chance to vote their superiors into office or have any decision making power in the places where they spend the greatest part of their lives. Or consider the supermarket chain muscling its way into a town against the will of local people. Most areas of society are ruled by power, status and money, not through democracy. What’s wrong with voting? Compared to this, working in a small group where everyone votes directly on important issues may feel like having democratic control. However, voting creates a majority and a minority – a situation in which there are winners and losers. If most people support an idea then it will be voted in, and the concerns of the people who opposed it can be ignored. This situation can foster conflict and distrust as the ‘losers’ feel disempowered by the process. The will of the majority is seen as the will of the whole group, with the minority expected to accept and carry out the decision, even if it is against their deeply held convictions and most basic needs. A majority will find it easy to steamroll an idea over a dissenting minority rather than looking for another solution that would suit all. People might sometimes choose to bow to the will of the majority, but, in a voting system, when people constantly find themselves in a minority they lose control over their own lives. A vivid example is the imprisonment, in many European ‘democracies’, of those refusing military service. It’s true that majority voting enables even controversial decisions to be taken in a minimum amount of time, but that doesn’t mean to say that this decision will be a wise one, or even morally acceptable. After all, at one time, the majority of Europeans and North Americans supported the ‘right’ to hold slaves. The alternatives are already here “We have these moments of non-capitalist, non-coercive, non-hierarchical interaction in our lives constantly, and these are the times when we most enjoy the company of others, when we get the most out of other people; but somehow it doesn’t occur to us to demand that our society work this way.” CrimethInc Many people accept the idea that voting is the ‘normal’ way of having democratic control over the decisions that affect us – after all, it is often presented to us as the only possibility out there. However, a rejection of voting is nothing new. Many people struggling for social change have recognised that changing the way we make decisions is key to creating a different society. If we are fighting for a better society where everyone has control over their own life, where everyone has equal access to power, where it’s possible for everyone to follow their interests and fulfil their needs, then we need to develop alternative processes for making decisions; processes that recognise everyone’s right to self-determination, that encourage mutual aid and replace competition with co-operation. The alternatives to the current system are already here, growing in the gaps between the paving stones of state authority and corporate control. We only need to learn to recognise them for the seedlings of the different kind of society that they are. Homeless people occupying empty houses and turning them into collective homes, workers buying out the businesses they work for and running them on equitable terms, gardening groups growing vegetables collectively; once we start looking there are hundreds of examples of co-operative organising that we encounter in our daily lives. Many of these organise through varying forms of consensus decision making. Pg.2/24 www.seedsforchange.org.uk Why use consensus? No one is more qualified than you to decide what your life will be. Consensus decision making is based on the idea that people should have full control over their lives and that power should be shared by all rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. It implies wide-ranging liberty, including the freedom to decide one’s own course in life and the right to play an equal role in forging a common future. As well as wanting to enjoy as much freedom as possible, most of us wish to live in, and are dependent on, some form of society. This means finding ways to balance the needs and desires of every individual with those of the closer community and the wider world. Consensus decision making aims to provide a way of doing this. It builds on respect, trust, cooperation and mutual aid to achieve agreeable solutions for everyone concerned. At the heart of consensus is a respectful dialogue between equals. It’s about helping groups to work together to meet both the individual’s and the group’s needs. It’s about how to work with each other rather than for or against each other, something that requires openness and trust. Consensus is looking for ‘win-win’ solutions that are acceptable to all, with the direct benefit that everyone agrees with the final decision, resulting in a greater commitment to actually turning it into reality. In consensus every person has the power to make changes in the group they are working in – and to prevent changes they find unacceptable. The right to block a decision means that minorities cannot just be ignored, but solutions will have to be found to deal with their concerns. No decision will be made against the will of an individual or a minority, instead the group constantly adapts to all its member’s needs. Consensus is about active participation and sharing power equally. This makes it a powerful tool not only for empowering individuals, but also for bringing people together and building communities. Who uses consensus? Consensus is not a new idea. Variations of consensus have been tested and proven around the world and through time. On the American continent non-hierarchical societies have existed for hundreds of years. Before 1600, five nations – the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca – formed the Haudenosaunee Confederation, which works on a consensual basis and is still in existence today. There are also many examples of successful and stable utopian communes using consensus decision making such as the Christian Herrnhüter settlement 1741-1760 and the production commune Boimondeau in France 1941-1972. Christiania, an autonomous district in the city of Copenhagen has been self-governed by its inhabitants since 1971. Within the co-operative movement many housing co-ops and social enterprises use consensus successfully: prominent examples include Green City, a wholefood wholesaler based in Scotland; and Radical Routes, a network of housing co-ops and workers’ co-ops in the UK. The business meetings of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) use consensus to integrate the insights of each individual, arriving at the best possible approximation of the Truth. Political and social activists such as many anarchists and others working for peace, the environment and social justice commonly regard consensus to be essential to their work. They believe that the methods for achieving change need to match their goals and visions of a free, nonviolent, egalitarian society. In protests around the world many mass actions and protest camps involving several thousand people have been organised and carried out using consensus, including the 1999 ‘Battle of Seattle’ World Trade Organisation protest, the 2005 G8 summit protests in Scotland and the Camps for Climate Action in the UK, Germany, Australia, Netherlands and other countries. Consensus Decision Making Pg.3/24 Conditions for consensus Different groups use slightly different processes to achieve consensus decisions. However, in every group, there are a few conditions that underpin consensus building. Common Goal: everyone present at the meeting needs to share a common goal and be willing to work together towards it. This could be the desire to take action at a specific event, or a shared vision of a better world. Don’t just assume everyone is pulling in the same direction – spend time together defining the goals of your group and the way you can get there. If differences arise in later meetings, revisiting the common goal can help to focus and unite the group. Commitment to reach consensus: consensus can require a lot of commitment and patience to make it work. Everyone must be willing to really give it a go. This means not only being deeply honest about what it is you want or don’t want but also able to properly listen to what others have to say. Everyone must be willing to shift their positions, to be open to alternative solutions and be able to reassess what they consider to be their needs. It would be easy to call for a vote at the first sign of difficulty, but in the consensus model, differences help to build a stronger and more creative final decision. Difficulties can arise if individuals secretly want to return to majority voting, just waiting for the chance to say “I told you it wouldn’t work.” Trust and openness: we all need to be able to trust that everyone shares our commitment to creating true consensus decisions. This includes being able to trust people not to abuse the process or to manipulate the outcome of the discussion. If we’re scared that other people are putting their own wishes and needs before everyone else’s then we’re more likely to become defensive, and behave in the same way ourselves because it seems to be the only way to look after our own interests. Pg.4/24 Making decisions by consensus is based on openness – this means learning to openly express both our desires (what we’d like to see happening), and our needs (what we have to see happen in order to support a decision). It takes time for us to learn how to distinguish between our wants and needs – after all most of us are more used to decision making where one wins and the other loses. In this kind of adversarial system we are often forced to claim we need more than we really do so we can concede points without giving up any significant ground. But if everyone is able to talk openly then the group will have the information it requires to take everyone’s positions into account and to come up with a solution that everyone can support. Sufficient time for making decisions and for learning to work by consensus. Taking time to make a good decision now can save wasting time revisiting a bad one later. Clear Process: it’s essential for everyone to have a shared understanding of the process that the meeting is using. There are lots of variations of the consensus process, so even if people are experienced in using consensus they may use it differently to you! There may also be group agreements or hand signals in use that need to be explained. Active participation: if we want a decision we can all agree on then we all need to play an active role in the decision making. This means listening to what everyone has to say, voicing thoughts and feelings about the matter and pro-actively looking for solutions that include everyone. www.seedsforchange.org.uk Good facilitation: When your group is larger than just a handful of people or you are trying to make difficult decisions, appoint facilitators to help your meeting run more smoothly. Good facilitation helps the group to work harmoniously, creatively and democratically. It also ensures that the tasks of the meeting get done, that decisions are made and implemented. If, in a small group, you don’t give one person the role of facilitator, then everyone can be responsible for facilitation. If you do appoint facilitators, they need active support from everyone present. All of the conditions talked about above can be gained or improved over time – so if your group isn’t meeting all the conditions at the moment you don’t have to give up! For example, if you haven’t agreed on your common goal use consensus to decide on one that everyone can subscribe to; or if your group’s facilitation skills aren’t too good then use any opportunities to practice; read our facilitation briefings or attend a training. The consensus process (for small and medium sized groups) The key for a group working towards consensus is for all members of the group express their needs and viewpoints clearly, recognise their common ground and find solutions to any areas of disagreement. The diagram below shows how a discussion evolves during the consensus process. At the beginning it widens out as people bring different perspectives and ideas to the group. This provides the material needed for a broad ranging discussion (the middle section) which explores all the options and helps people understand each others’ concerns. This can be a turbulent and sometimes difficult stage – people might be grappling with lots of competing or contradictory ideas – but it is the most creative part, so don’t lose heart! Finally the group finds common ground and weeds out some of the options, combining all the useful bits into a proposal. The third stage in the diagram shows this convergence of the discussion, culminating in the decision. Opening out Share needs, concerns, desires and emotions. Discussion Generate ideas. Try to understand each other’s needs and concerns. Explore ideas and pros and cons. Consensus Decision Making Synthesis Find common ground and build proposals by weaving together different ideas. Proposals need to address fundamental needs and key concerns. Pg.5/24 The stages of the consensus process There are lots of consensus models out there, some groups have developed very detailed procedures, other groups follow a more organic process. The following basic process outlines the stages that are common to most models of consensus. Although your group may not formally go through the process for each and every decision you make it’s a good idea to regularly practise doing it in this way. Being familiar with the process can really help when it comes to difficult or complex decisions. This model will work well in groups up to about 15-20 people. With groups larger than that extra steps need to be built in to ensure that everyone is able to participate fully. Have a look at the section on Consensus in large groups below to see how this basic model can be adapted to work for groups of hundreds and even thousands of people. Step 1: Introduce and clarify the issue(s) to be decided Share relevant information. Work out what the key questions are. Step 2: Explore the issue and look for ideas 1. Gather initial thoughts and reactions. What are the issues and concerns? 2. Collect ideas for solving the problem – write them down. 3. Have a broad ranging discussion and debate the ideas: H What are the pros and cons? H Start to think about solutions to the concerns. H Eliminate some ideas, short list others. Step 3: Look for emerging proposals Is there one idea, or a series of ideas, that brings together the best qualities of the ideas discussed? Look for a solution that everyone might agree on and create a proposal. Step 4: Discuss, clarify and amend your proposal Ensure that any remaining concerns are heard and that everyone has a chance to Look for amendments that make the proposal even more acceptable to the group. Step 5: Test for agreement Do you have agreement? Check for the following: Blocks: I have a fundamental disagreement with the core of the proposal that cannot be resolved. We need to look for a new Stand asides: I can’t support this proposal because ... but I don’t want to stop the group, so I’ll let the decision happen without Reservations: I have some reservations but am willing to let the proposal pass. Agreement: I support the proposal and am willing to help implement it. Consensus: No blocks, not too many stand asides or reservations? Active agreement? Then we have a decision! Step 6: Implement the decision Who, when, how? Action point the various tasks, set deadlines etc. Pg.6/24 www.seedsforchange.org.uk Step 1: Introduce and clarify the issue This first stage is crucial to get you off to a good start. A good introduction will focus the meeting, ensure that everyone is talking about the same issue and provide everyone with all relevant information needed to make a decision. Spending a bit more time now to get everyone up to speed will save lots of time later. Explain what the issue is and why it needs to be discussed. This could be done by the facilitator, the person who is raising the issue or by someone who knows a lot about the issue and its background. Share all relevant information. If possible prepare a summary of the relevant information and circulate in advance so that people have a chance to read up and think about the issue. Agree the aims of the discussion: What decisions need to be made by when? Who needs to be involved in making the decision? What are the key questions? Can you break complex issues into smaller chunks to tackle one by one? Do all the decisions need to be made today? Does everyone need to be involved or can the issue be delegated to a working group? Could you decide the basics and leave the fine details to be worked out by a couple of people? Allow plenty of time for questions and clarifications. Don’t assume that everything is crystal clear, just because it’s obvious to you. Equally, if you are confused yourself, now is the time to ask for more information or explanations. Step 2: Explore the issue and look for ideas Now it’s time for everyone to really try to understand the issue, to express what they want and need to happen and to come up with lots of ideas for solving the problems. 1. Gather initial thoughts and reactions. Start by giving people time to think about the issue and to express any wishes and concerns that it brings up. Make a note of these as they’ll need to be addressed for a solution to be found. Resist the temptation to jump straight in with a proposal – to achieve consensus we first of all need to have a good understanding of everyone’s concerns and limitations. Be honest about your own feelings and listen carefully to what everyone else is saying. At times it can be difficult to say what it is you want and don’t want so if you’re struggling to express things say so rather than staying quiet. Equally, if you don’t quite understand someone else’s position, ask for clarification. 3. Have a broad ranging discussion about the ideas. Consensus is a creative thinking process that thrives on mixing up lots of different ideas. Make time for a broad ranging discussion, where you can explore ideas and look at the pros and cons and any concerns they bring up. This will often spark new and surprising ideas. Express your reservations about ideas early on so that they can be dealt with. Draw on all the experience, knowledge and wisdom present in your group. Make sure that everyone is heard. 2. Collect ideas for solving the problem. Use techniques such as go-rounds, ideastorms or breaking into small groups to generate lots of ideas for solving the problem. Be clear that at this stage they are only ideas, not proposals. When bringing up ideas take into account the concerns you’ve heard. For example, if someone has said that they aren’t able to get to a venue because of the poor transport links to that part of town, don’t suggest another venue in the same area. Consensus Decision Making Pg.7/24 Step 3: Look for emerging proposals After discussing the issue freely move on to finding agreement on what needs to be done. This stage is also called synthesis, which means coming up with a proposal by combining elements from several different ideas. Start with a summary of where you think the group and its different members are at. Outline the emerging common ground as well as the unresolved differences: “It seems like we’ve almost reached agreement on that element, but we need to explore this part further to address everyone’s concerns.” It’s important to not only pick up on clear differences, but also on more subtle agreement or disagreement. Now start building a proposal from whatever agreement there is. Look for ideas on how the differences can be resolved. Focus on solutions that address the fundamental needs and key concerns that people within the group have. Often people are willing to give way on some things but not on others which affect them more closely. The solution will often be found by combining elements from different proposals. It can really help to use a flipchart or a whiteboard to write up the areas of agreement and issues to be resolved. This means everyone can see what’s happening and it focusses the discussion. Making this obvious to the group can help to provide ways forward. Even when there is strong disagreement within the group, synthesis can help move the discussion on. Always try and find some common ground, no matter how small: “So we’re all agreed that climate change demands urgent action, even if we disagree on whether the solution lies in developing new technologies, or reducing consumption”. This can reinforce that we’re all on the same side, and remind a group of their overall shared aims – a necessary condition for consensus. Also synthesising a solution doesn’t necessarily mean uniformity or unanimity. Sometimes a solution is staring us in the face, but our desire to get full agreement becomes an obstacle: “So we’re all agreed we’d like to go ahead with the protest. However some feel strongly that the target of our protest should be government, and others feel it ought to be corporations – is there any reason why we have to choose between the two? Could we not agree that both can happen?” People often argue over small details and overlook the fact that they agree on the big picture. Step 4: Discuss, clarify and amend your proposal Check whether people have concerns about the proposal and look for amendments that make the proposal more acceptable to everyone. Do things like go-rounds and straw polls to gauge support for the proposal and to elicit amendments. If it becomes obvious at this stage that some people have strong reservations, see whether you can come up with a different, better option. Remember, consensus is about finding solutions that work for everyone. Be careful not to get carried away because most people like the proposal. Watch out for people who are quiet or looking unhappy and check with them. Give people time to get their head around the proposal and what it means for them. If it’s a complex or emotional issue then build in some time for reflection or a break before moving on to testing for agreement. Pg.8/24 www.seedsforchange.org.uk Step 5: Test for agreement 1. Clearly state the proposal: it’s best if people can see it written up, for example on a large piece of paper. 2. Check for clarifications: does everyone fully understand what is being proposed? Does everyone understand the same thing? 3. Ask whether anyone has reservations or objections: ideally the consensus decision making process should identify and address concerns and reservations at an early stage. However, proposals do not always get whole hearted support from everyone, and less confident group members may find it hard to express their disagreement. It is important therefore to explicitly check if anyone is unhappy with a proposal at this stage. Within consensus there are several ways of expressing disagreement. The first two, declaring reservations and standing aside, provide a way to express concerns, whilst allowing the group to proceed with the decision. The block stops the proposal. Declaring reservations: I still have problems with the proposal, but I’ll go along with it. You are willing to let the proposal pass but want to register your concerns. You may even put energy into implementing the idea once your dissent has been acknowledged. If there are significant reservations the group may amend or reword the proposal. Standing aside: I can’t support this proposal because... but I don’t want to stop the group, so I’ll let the decision happen without me and I won’t be part of implementing it. You might stand aside because you disagree with with the proposal: “I’m unhappy enough with this decision not to put any effort into making it a reality, but if the rest of you want to go ahead, I won’t stop you.” In this case the person standing aside is not responsible for the consequences. This should be recorded in the minutes. Sometimes standing aside can be more pragmatic. You might like the decision but be unable to support it because of time restraints or personal energy levels. “I’m OK with the decision, but I’m not going to be around next week to make it happen.” The group may be happy to accept the stand aside and go ahead. Or the group might decide to work on a new proposal, especially where there are several stand asides. Blocking: I have a fundamental disagreement with the core of the proposal that cannot be resolved. We need to look for a new proposal. A block always stops a proposal from being agreed. It expresses a fundamental objection. It means that you cannot live with the proposal. This isn’t an “I don’t really like it” or “I liked the other idea better.” It means “I fundamentally object to this proposal, and here is why...!” If the group accepts the proposal either you or others will struggle to stay part of the group. The group can either accept the block and immediately look for another proposal, or look for amendments to overcome the objection. The block is a powerful tool and should be used with caution. Ideally strong concerns will be heard early enough in the discussion to feed into in the synthesised proposal and a block will be unnecessary. Make sure that everyone understands the different options for expressing disagreement. Often people are confused and block when they would actually be happy to stand aside. Sometimes people are scared of blocking even though they are deeply unhappy and use a milder form of disagreement instead. Ask people what their problems with the proposal are, and whether they have suggestions for how they could be addressed. 4. Check for active agreement. If there are no blocks, check for active agreement from everyone. People often show they agree by waving their hands, but watch out for silence or inaction and check for the reasons. Step 6: Implement the decision Once you’ve agreed what you want to do, you need to work out who will do what and by when. Share out the tasks among the group and record these action points in the minutes for the meeting. Consensus Decision Making Pg.9/24 An example of a consensus process Step 1: Introduce and clarify issue “The bit of wasteland that we’ve used as a park for the last ten years is going to be sold by the council – they want to sell it so a supermarket can be built there!” “But nobody wants another supermarket – we already have three in this town!” Step 2: Explore the issue and look for ideas “Let’s go round and see what everyone thinks.” “I guess it’s time to find somewhere else for the kids to play.” “I can’t give up that easily – let’s look for ways to raise the money to buy the park!” “Yeah, let’s form an action group, do some fundraising, and what about squatting it?” “Mmm... not sure that squatting’s for me. I’d be happy to look at raising money though.” “OK, but I don’t want to rule out taking action if we can’t raise the money.” [More ideas are talked about...] Step 3: Look for emerging proposals “So what are we going to do? Some of you feel that we should build tree houses in the park to stop the developers, but we think we should try and raise money to buy the land.” “But nobody’s said that they’re actually against squatting the park – just not everyone wants to do it. And squatting might slow the council down so we have time to raise the money. Let’s do both.” Step 4: Discuss, clarify and amend your proposal “So let’s just check how everyone feels about that as a proposal. Let’s do a go-round.” “I like the idea of both squatting and trying to raise the cash to save the park, but people have been talking about separate groups doing those. I feel that we really need to stay as one group.” [Everyone has their say...] “OK, so there’s a suggestion that we amend the proposal to make it clear that we stay as one group, even though we’re squatting and raising funds at the same time.” Step 5: Test for agreement “Right, we have a proposal that we squat the park to make sure that it doesn’t get trashed, and at the same time we start doing grant applications to raise money to buy the land. We’re going to be clear that we are one group doing both these things. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Remember, if you think we should consider any reservations you have then please let us know, even if you’re still going to go along with it. And you can stand aside if you don’t want to take part in all or part of the plans. Finally, the block is if you feel this is really wrong for some reason.” “Yes, I think squatting has good chances of getting results, but I’m not sure we can raise that much cash. I’m not going to stand in the way – so yeah, I’ll stand aside from the grants bit.” “I don’t believe we can manage the fundraising either, but I’m happy to give it a try.” “Does anyone else disagree? No? OK, I think we might have consensus. Let’s just check – wave your hands if you agree with the proposal... Rob, just checking, because you didn’t wave your hands – are you happy with the proposal? Ah, I see, yes... I hope your wrist gets better soon. Great, we have consensus, with one stand aside and one reservation!” Step 6: Implement the decision “OK, so we’re going to squat the land and we need to start fundraising. We’ll need to decide things like when we’ll start squatting, and what things we’ll need. And for the fundraising we’ll need to identify funds that may be able to help, and come up with other ideas for raising money. And let’s talk to people who couldn’t come tonight and make sure they can get involved.” Pg.10/24 www.seedsforchange.org.uk When do I use the block? At the decision stage of the consensus process people have several options: to agree with the proposal (with or without reservations), to stand aside from the proposal but let the others proceed, or to block the proposal. The option to block a proposal is based on the principle that no decision should be made against the will of a member of the group. It is an integral part of the consensus process. It means that a minority can’t just be ignored, but solutions will have to be found that deal with their concerns. If a proposal is blocked, it means that the group can’t move forward, and needs to come up with a different proposal that addresses the concerns that led to the block. However, a big responsibility comes with the option to block. The block stops other people from doing something that they would like to do, therefore it is only appropriate to use it if major concerns about the proposal remain unresolved when it reaches decision stage. A person considering blocking needs to think carefully about whether standing aside from the decision – letting others in the group go ahead – would be enough. Key skills for consensus Active Listening: When we actively listen we suspend our own thought processes and give the speaker our full attention. We make a deliberate effort to understand someone’s position and their underlying needs, concerns and emotions. Summarising: A succinct and accurate summary of what’s been said so far can be really helpful to move a group towards a decision. Outline the emerging common ground as well as the unresolved differences. Check with everyone that you’ve got it right. Synthesis: Find the common ground, and any connections between seemingly competing ideas, and weave them together to form proposals. Focus on solutions that address the fundamental needs and key concerns within the group. Consensus Decision Making Pg.11/24 Handsignals Handsignals can make meetings run more smoothly and help the facilitator see emerging agreements. The following three signals usually suffice: Raise a hand when you wish to make a point. Raise both hands if your point is a direct response to the current discussion. This allows you to jump to the head of the queue. Silent applause when you hear an opinion that you agree with wave a hand with your fingers pointing upwards. This saves a lot of time as people don’t need to chip in to verbally agree. Guidelines for taking part in consensus decisions H If you don’t understand something, don’t be afraid to say so. H Be willing to work towards the solution that’s best for everyone, not just what’s best for you. Be flexible and willing to give something up to reach an agreement. H Help to create a respectful and trusting atmosphere. Nobody should be afraid to express their ideas and opinions. Remember that we all have different values, backgrounds and behaviour and we get upset by different things. H Explain your own position clearly. Be open and honest about the reasons for your view points. Express your concerns early on in the process so that they can be taken into account in any proposals. H Listen actively to what people are trying to say. Make a deliberate effort to understand someone’s position and their underlying needs, concerns and emotions. Give everyone space to finish and take time to consider their point of view. H Think before you speak, listen before you object. Listen to other members’ reactions and consider them carefully before pressing your point. Self restraint is essential in consensus – sometimes the biggest obstacle to progress is an individual’s attachment to one idea. If another proposal is good, don’t complicate matters by opposing it just because it isn’t your favourite idea! Ask yourself: “Does this idea work for the group, even if I don’t like it the best?” or “Are all our ideas good enough? So does it matter which one we choose?”. H Don’t be afraid of disagreement. Consensus isn’t about everybody thinking the same thing. Differences of opinion are natural and to be expected. Disagreements can help a group’s decision, because with a wide range of information and opinions, there is a greater chance the group will find suitable solutions. Easily reached consensus may cover up the fact that some people don’t feel safe, or confident enough to express their disagreements. Pg.12/24 www.seedsforchange.org.uk Quick decision making There are models for reaching a quick consensus that have been developed for fast moving situations such as actions and protests, where people only have a few minutes (at most) to come to a decision. In quick consensus we are cutting short the discussion part and paring it down to just one workable proposal with amendments. This is because you are aiming to make the best decision in the time you have. This needs lots of practice in advance. If you want to use this process, you'll need to discuss in advance the situations when you'll use it, and take time to explore the issues involved. That way you'll already know what people's concerns and reactions might be when confronted with the situation. In effect, this is like having the discussion stage of the consensus process in advance, which will allow you to jump straight to the proposal stage in an urgent situation. How it works: To save time appoint a facilitator in advance. The facilitator briefly states the situation. Facilitator summarises the situation and clarifies the decision to be made Proposal Any Blocks? No? Any Stand Asides? Yes Counter proposal Any Amendments? Agreement? Once you've clarified what decision needs to be made, move straight onto making one proposal. Don't try to come up with several options. In some cases there may be time for discussion, but in others there won’t be. Check whether anyone would block the proposal. If it is blocked, then make a new one straight away, rather than wasting time on the blocked one. If you hit upon a proposal that will work, then go with that. Check for stand asides and, if you have time, make some friendly amendments. It is really important that people understand the difference between block and stand aside. A stand aside in quick consensus means “I won't do this”, a block means “I don't want the group to do this”. A block kills a proposal – it’s a total veto. In quick consensus people normally block either because a proposal will split the group (usually because some people have an ethical objection to it, or because it might endanger someone's safety) or the group is failing to make a decision. A stand aside is agree...
Purchase answer to see full attachment