How to Reach Consensus: 9 Steps (with Pictures)

2024 Author: Samantha Chapman | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 09:13

Consent corresponds to the opinion or position reached by a group of people as a whole. To generate a broad agreement within a group, a decision-making process is put in place that leads to obtaining a consensus. These instructions will guide you through that process.

Steps

Step 1. Understand the principles of decision making that produce an understanding

There are five requirements in this type of path:

• Inclusion. It is necessary to involve as many members of the community as possible. Nobody should be kicked out or left out (unless they ask to be left out).

  

• Participation. Not only does each person be included, but everyone is expected to participate in providing opinions and suggestions. While there are different roles, each has an equal share (and value) in the final decision.

  

• Cooperation. All involved collaborate and mutually examine each other's concerns and suggestions regarding a particular decision or solution that will satisfy all members of the group, not just the majority (while the minority is ignored).

  

• Equality. All have equal weight in decisions and equal opportunities to amend, veto and block ideas.

  

• Focus on the solution. An effective decision-making body works for a common solution, despite the differences. This is done through a collaborative process of formulating proposals aimed at satisfying as many concerns as possible of the participants.

  

Step 2. Understand the benefits of using a consent-generating process

The decision-making process that creates consensus involves a discussion in which everyone is called to collaborate rather than a debate between adversaries. Therefore, it implies that all parties move on common ground. The benefits include:

• Better decisions, since all views of the group are taken into account. The resulting proposals, therefore, are able to resolve, as far as possible, all the problems concerning the decision.

  

• Better relationships in the group. Through collaboration, rather than competition, group members are able to build closer relationships through decision making. Resentment and rivalry between winners and losers are minimized.

  

• Better enforcement of decisions. When a broad agreement has been reached and everyone has participated in the process, there is usually a strong level of cooperation in what follows. There are unlikely to be disgruntled losers who could passively undermine or sabotage the effective implementation of group decisions.

  

Step 3. Decide how the group should define a decision

A process leading to consensus allows the group to generate as much agreement as possible. Some groups require each member to agree if a proposal needs to be approved. Other groups, on the other hand, ensure that decisions are defined even without unanimous consent. Often a super-majority is considered sufficient. Some groups use a simple majority vote or the judgment of a leader. However, they can use a process to reach consensus on proposals regardless of how they define the decision.

Step 4. Understand the meaning of consent

Agreeing to a proposal does not necessarily correspond to your first choice of action. Participants are encouraged to consider the good of the whole group. This can mean accepting a rather shared proposal, even if it is not among your personal preferences. During the decision-making process, participants express their concerns by discussing them so that their ideas are taken into account. In the end, however, they often decide to accept the maximum effort of the group rather than create factions or engender "us versus them" behavior.

Step 5. Make a clear outline of what needs to be decided

You may need to add or subtract something. Therefore, it is possible to start something new or change something already in progress. Whatever it is, make sure the whole matter is clearly spelled out so that everyone understands. In the first place it is always a good idea to address why a particular question has been raised (i.e. what is the problem that needs to be solved?). Briefly review the available alternatives.

Step 6. List any concerns the participants have in relation to the proposals

This will lay the foundation for the collaborative development of a proposal supported by the majority of people.

Step 7. Feel the ground

Before attempting a lengthy discussion, take an informal survey to see how much support a proposed idea has. If everyone agrees on a position, move on to finalizing and implementing the decision. If you disagree, discuss the concerns surrounding the proposal. Then adapt the proposal, if you can, to make it more acceptable. Sometimes the solution is reached by finding a middle ground between all parties. Even better, however, occurs when a proposal is modeled to satisfy as many needs as possible ("win-win", or advantageous for all), rather than through compromise. Remember to listen to any conflicting opinions in an effort to get full agreement.

Step 8. Apply the final decision rule

After making a strong attempt to reach full agreement, question the group to find out if the support is sufficient to push through the proposal. The threshold of support needed depends on the choices related to decision-making rules within the group. In order to facilitate the construction of consensus, it is good that these rules are established well in advance of the appearance of any controversial proposal. There are several options:

• Mandatory unanimity
• A dissenter (also called U-1, meaning unanimity minus one) means that all participants support the decision except one. The disagreement does not usually have to block the decision, but it may be able to prolong the debate (using stonewalling). By virtue of his doubts about the decision, the lone dissenter provides an excellent assessment of the consequences of the decision because he can see the decision with a critical eye and identify its negative effects before the others.
• Two dissenters (U-2, i.e. unanimity minus two) cannot block a decision, but they have the right to prolong the debate and secure a third dissenting (in this case the decision can be blocked), if they agree that the proposal is wrong.
• Three dissenters (U-3, i.e. unanimity minus three) are recognized by most groups as a sufficient number to constitute a disagreement, but it can vary according to the decision-making bodies (particularly if it is a small group).
• Approximate consent: does not precisely define "how much is enough". The group leader or even the group itself must decide whether an agreement has been reached (although it can create further dissent when an agreement cannot be reached for it to become a consensus). This gives greater responsibility to the leader and can spark further debate if the leader's judgment is called into question.
• Super majority (can range from 55% to 90%).
• Simple majority.
• Refer to a committee or leader for a final decision.

Step 9. Implement the decision

Advice

• Keep in mind that the goal is to reach a decision that the group can accept, not a decision that necessarily satisfies the wishes of each member.
• Emphasize the role of the group in finding a solution to various problems, without juxtaposing the interests of the participants with each other.
• Give some time to be quiet during the discussion. If all participants have time to think before speaking, they will be able to express their opinion in a moderate and reasoned way.
• For a decision that requires a long time and the participation of many people, establish a few roles in the discussion. Make sure these people are responsible members of the group and that the participants see them as such, taking their suggestions seriously and with respect. These figures have the right to vote as much as the decision-makers: their vote counts neither more nor less than anyone else. Here are some roles that might be useful:
• Facilitators: ensure that the decision-making process adheres to the consensus building rules (as described above) but also within a reasonable time frame. There can be more than one facilitator and a facilitator can "resign" from this role if they feel they are personally involved in the decision.
• Time clerks: keep an eye on the time. They let the facilitators and the group know how much time is missing and can help guide the discussion so it doesn't go off topic. They are not always necessary, unless the facilitators are too busy moderating to be in control of the time.
• Moderators: measure the "emotional climate" of the discussion to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. The goal is to anticipate emotional conflicts, prevent or resolve them, and get rid of any kind of intimidation within the group.
• Note-taking workers: Record the group's decisions, discussions, and action points so that leaders, facilitators, or any member of the group can recall previously reported concerns or statements and track developments. This role is especially important in long and varied discussions, where it is difficult to remember who said what.
• Make sure everyone understands what is meant by "consent" (see previous points) since everyone will want to know when it is reached.
• Be patient with people as they learn the process that leads to consent. It is often very different from the concept of democracy that everyone has (especially for people from Europe and North America).
• Some decision makers are likely to want to "step aside". It usually means that the individual does not support the proposal during the discussion, but allows the decision to pass if necessary. Sometimes, though, a person chooses to step aside simply because they don't feel they are knowledgeable enough about the subject to be able to participate constructively.

Warnings

• Watch out for belligerent decision makers who try to make personal discussions or go off topic. Facilitators and moderators (if using the above advice) should be tasked with maintaining a positive climate in the decision-making process leading to consensus.
• If the group requires unanimity, the possibility exists for one person (or a small minority) to block decisions. This can leave a group stuck in a state of severe disagreement. It is advisable to change the decision rules so that the group can carry out a decision, even if not everyone agrees.