Everyone has a piece of the truth
The use of consensus as a decision-making process has increased greatly in the past 40 years or so. Cohousing groups across America make their decisions by consensus, as do many businesses, university departments, neighborhoods and other intentional communities.
Unfortunately, people often use consensus with little understanding of its background, where it came from or its central purpose. Against this background of misunderstanding, we often hear that the consensus process is hard, time-consuming and makes it difficult to come to a decision. In reality, consensus – when properly understood – can lead to exciting and rewarding meetings, with creative ideas coming to bear on the decisions necessary to implement proposals brought before a group.
Consensus is not right for all groups, but it is practical for many. Essential elements include having a degree of trust among members, a common purpose, time to understand the question, problem or proposal carefully, a true belief that each person has the right to be heard and attention to the process used for arriving at decisions.
It's also helpful if the final decision is not subject to a hierarchical structure of authority. Otherwise, the problem of maintaining trust becomes very real. One complaint – “Why take the time and trouble to make consensus decisions when someone can void them?” – is frequently heard when there is an outside force or hierarchy at work. Because "consensus" has become such an important word, giving the appearance that each person receives attention and empowerment, groups sometimes use consensus to conceal an underlying power structure. This is neither honest nor helpful for people who truly are trying to work together.
Groups with no common purpose also would be mistaken to attempt to use consensus. They'd likely experience long, difficult meetings that would burn everyone out – not only on the process but also on the issues they want to resolve.
An important aspect of consensus is an acceptance of the reality that we are seeking unity, not unanimity. This means that the group can support the decision, rather than every member thinking it's perfect. Someone (or ones) might prefer to see phrasing or wording, but unity means that the intent and decision are acceptable to everyone.
Consensus for today's world
Consensus is a process in which all persons who are present are working with a problem, proposal or idea – with full input from everyone – and arrive at a decision that everyone can unite with by agreement. Consensus proceeds from a different place than Robert's Rules of Order, where everyone has a vote and the majority wins. In consensus, there is no vote. Each person has the right and the power to stop a decision.
Consensus comes from an old, spiritually based tradition. Native Americans used forms of decision making that are reflected in some of the basics of consensus we use today. More recent forerunners, however, are members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), who have used consensus for more than 300 years. Among Friends, however, you rarely hear the word “consensus.” Their expression is taking “the sense of the meeting,” which seems more in line with what really happens. Believing that God is in every person, the Friends feel that all parts of God need to be represented in the decision. So they wait until all who wish to speak do so, and then work to arrive at the best decision by everyone's consent.
Today we speak of “everyone having a piece of the truth.” When we operate from this premise, it helps to equalize participation and also helps us listen to each person as he or she speaks. As the meeting continues, the pieces begin to fall together. It can appear at times that the group has conflicts and competing points of view. Yet if we think of a cut diamond and how facets on opposite sides combine to create brilliance, perhaps we can listen more carefully to different perspectives and see them simply as different facets of the same truth.
From all the listening and sharing, a “sense of the meeting” begins to emerge that will move people to a decision. At some point a decision becomes self-evident. At that point the facilitator should state the impending decision and check to see if everyone is ready to agree.
Standing aside or blocking
In consensus, people have two alternatives if they aren't in unity with the decision. One option is to "stand aside" and let the minutes record their action. People choose to stand aside if they feel they need to do so for personal reasons.
Standing aside does not stop the group from moving forward and implementing a decision. It is usually important, however, for the group to know the person's reasons for standing aside. That way the group can determine whether they can craft a decision differently to meet his or her concerns. In my own experience, I've found that when two or more people stand aside, it's time to stop the process and review the pending decision. Often, if we continue our discussion, we can improve our decision by addressing the concerns of those who stand aside.
The second – and more difficult – option is to “stand in the way” or “block” a decision. Blocking occurs when one or more individuals believe that the decision being reached will be disastrous or detrimental to the group or organization. Whoever feels this way is obligated to stop the action from moving forward and to explain why. The group then has several options for working with the block. In some cases, it becomes clear that the objection is so fundamental that the issue needs to be “laid down” completely. More often, however, groups can put the decision on hold and appoint an individual or committee to work out the objections, so that when the group meets again, the individual's concerns have been addressed and the meeting can go forward.
When feelings are running high, the group should not try to pressure those who differ. It's hard enough to feel that you are stopping the group from going forward, without having additional pressure exerted on you for your differing opinions or a deeply held belief.
In the past 45 years, I've seen “blocking” or “standing in the way of” used correctly less than a dozen times. Usually the dissent was justified – the group would have made a mistake by moving forward. If one person consistently blocks decisions, a careful, thoughtful meeting with the individual can illuminate his or her true motivations. A good meeting also can show that this person is actually in alignment with the group but everyone needs more time to discover how they can work together.
When the group finishes its work and makes a decision, it often seems that a miracle has happened because the final outcome is nothing like what group members anticipated when they began their discussion. This element of letting the best – the truth – emerge is what gives the consensus process its life.
Sometimes the process takes a turn that seems impossible, but this is when people begin to let go and let spirit work. Once your piece of the truth has been given over to the whole, it's amazing how you'll see the way to the best decision. Sometimes things are moving that we can't see individually, but when the solution comes together in the collective it becomes so evident that the brilliance of the diamond shines over everyone.
Making the process work
In consensus, it is necessary that the minutes accurately reflect every decision. Groups often overlook the important process of both taking and reading back the minutes. You can't approve the minutes at the next meeting, because only those who are present when the minutes are made can approve them. Taking minutes is an art form, and should be done carefully.
The other necessary part of the consensus process is the facilitation. The facilitator is the “servant” of the group and shouldn't be involved in the substance of the agenda. This person aids in moving the group through the process and helps the group articulate its position by summarizing what's been said. Since there aren't actions such as “motions” and “seconds,” consensus has a very different flavor than majority voting. Someone needs to watch the process and tend to the needs of the group so that everyone is heard. The facilitator's role is to make the meeting as easy and complete as possible and to assure that all parts of the truth are expressed.
Related pages: Group Process
