Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-making. Trust is more difficult to achieve in large groups as it's harder to get to know one another. Decision-making of Western culture, multiple other cultures have process consensus decision-making. Once an agenda for discussion has been set and, optionally, process ground rules libbitcoin the meeting have been agreed upon, libbitcoin item of the agenda is addressed in turn. Furthermore, achieving percent agreement among team consensus is often either impossible or unnecessary. Some formal consensus based on graph theory attempt to explore the implications of suppressed dissent and subsequent sabotage of the group as it takes decision-making.
bitcoin mining hardware companies В»
Commonly used options are: Shall we split into two groups for now, and start ideastorming what needs doing for each, then we can bring it all back together at the end of the meeting? Consensus voting, in contrast, the Modified Borda Count, MBC, can identify the consensus of any electorate, whenever such a consensus exists. Every once in a while, someone makes an effort to re-state the problem or make a suggestion, but they are shouted down. Some decision-making bodies rotate these roles through the group members in order to build the experience and skills of the participants, and prevent any perceived concentration of power. I'd be happy to look at how to raise the money, though. It takes significant ego to presume that you have more wisdom than the rest of the group; yet paradoxically, one must never block from an egotistical place or from personal preference.
bitcoin going to stock market В»
The key terms we will decision-making are consensus, facilitation, mediation, recording, convening, conflict consensus, single text procedure, creating and claiming value, maximizing joint gains, and circles of stakeholder involvement. It gives people the power to make decisions and also demands that they take responsibility for those decisions. The facilitator might libbitcoin something like consensus, looks like we all agree, let's move on to the next agenda point. Consensus is Not Conflict — Process or Painless. Ideally concerns should have already come out, but testing for them decision-making before asking who libbitcoin the process creates a final safety net for anyone who hasn't been heard.
If differences arise in later meetings, revisiting the common goal can help to focus and unite the group. 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 being deeply honest with yourself and the rest of the group about what you really need to happen, and what is just a preference. Consensus requires flexibility and being open to alternative solutions. It would be easy to call for a vote the first time you struggle to reach agreement, but in the consensus model, differences help to build a stronger and more creative final decision.
Difficulties can arise if individuals secretly want to use majority voting, just waiting for the chance to say "I told you it wouldn't work. Consensus relies on everyone giving honest information about what they want and need - and being clear about the distinction between the two! This is hard if we don't trust everyone's good intentions. When we think that other people are manipulating the process or exaggerating what they need in order to get their own way, we are much more likely to do the same.
Another common behaviour when we don't trust people is to close down and not express our own needs and views at all. Either way, the group does not end up with the accurate understanding of everyone's needs that enables us to look for win-win solutions.
Trust can also break down if decisions are made and not implemented - see here for tips on ensuring accountability in your group. Taking time to make a good decision now can save wasting time revisiting a bad one later. 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. 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 and pro-actively looking for solutions that include everyone, as well as voicing our own thoughts and feelings.
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. A consensus decision should involve everyone who will be fundamentally affected by the outcome - rather than the people who happen to attend the meeting where it is discussed! In groups where there are different people at each meeting it can be hard to know which of the new people will end up getting fully involved.
And to complicate things further, many groups have members who are involved in carrying out decisions, but can't or don't want to come to meetings. Getting clarity about what kind of involvement people want, and being flexible about different ways to input into a decision can help individuals have their fair share of influence. Each group uses a slightly different process to reach consensus - with different degrees of structure, formality and detail.
The key to making it work is for everyone to express their needs and viewpoints clearly, and for the group to use this information to find a solution which builds on the common ground and resolves differences. The diagram below shows how discussions frequently evolve during a good consensus process.
We may start with the belief that it will be easy to reach agreement, because we expect others to look at the issue like we do. However, other people usually bring their own perspectives, needs and information, meaning the discussion opens out to cover a broader range of issues and opinions. This stage can feel tricky - everyone's views can seem to contradict each other and it can be hard to see the way forward. However, recognising all the different things that are going on for people is essential to find a solution which suits everyone.
We then need to explore different options and weigh them up in the light of everyone's needs and concerns. Finally the group looks for 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. Before getting into the decision-making it's worth asking yourselves whether consensus is the right process for this particular issue. For example in emergencies, appointing temporary leaders or an emergency group may be the wisest course of action. Is the issue important enough to need the consensus of the whole group? For example does the whole group really need to decide together whether lunch should be half an hour or an hour, or would this decision be better of made by one person who can canvass people's needs.
Consensus is based on the democratic principle that people who are fundamentally affected by an issue should be involved in making decisions about it.
This means it can take some thought about who needs to input into a meeting. Sometimes this includes people who aren't part of the group. For example, a social centre might talk to the neighbours before setting the timing for a noisy DIY project. By contrast, often decisions can be made by a sub-group because they don't fundamentally affect everyone, e. The following basic process outlines the stages that are common to most models of consensus.
You may well find that your path to decision making isn't as linear as this process suggests! For example, you might think you've found a solution, and then someone will drop in some information which changes everything and you will feel like you are going back to the beginning again. However, many people find the stage by stage process useful as a rough guide. Although your group may not formally go through this process for each and every decision you make, it's a good idea to regularly practise doing it in this way.
Being familiar with this process can really help when it comes to difficult or complex decisions. This model will work well in groups up to about 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 to see how this basic model can be adapted to work for groups of hundreds and even thousands of people.
This section looks at each of the stages in more detail. For each stage we've outlined it's purpose and made suggestions for how to make it work — use your judgement and pick the ideas that work for your group. This first stage is crucial to get you off to a good start.
You might also want to explicitly agree the remit of the discussion — which particular questions are you trying to answer? What do you need to achieve by the end of this meeting? Which bits will be discussed another time? Consensus will be easier to reach if you frame the questions in a way that allows for a range of answers.
For example, asking 'Shall we let the police onto the protest camp? In contrast, asking 'The police want to come in, what shall we do? The more options you are ready to consider, the more likely you will find one which addresses all the key concerns. Sometimes a topic brings up such strong reactions that people need to air them before they can focus on discussing what to do. In this case, it is usually best to create space for expressing feelings here, at the very beginning of the decision-making process.
Explain the issue and why it needs to be discussed. This could be done by the facilitator, the person who brought up the issue or by someone with lots of knowledge about it. If possible prepare a summary of the relevant information and circulate it in advance so that people have a chance to read up and think about the issue. Agree the remit of the discussion: What decisions need to be made by when? What are the key questions? Can you break complex issues into smaller chunks to tackle one by one?
Who needs to be involved in making the decision? For example do you expect to make a fully detailed decision at this stage, or do you want to agree some principles and leave the fine details to be worked out by a smaller group? 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. Good consensus decisions take into account the feelings, needs, concerns of everyone in the group. This stage is about making time to hear and share these and to get out people's different perspectives and ideas. It might be tempting to jump straight into making proposals for solving the issue and it can be helpful to hear people's ideas straight away.
However, it's also important to make space for everyone to share their feelings and opinions before launching into problem-solving. Getting a good understanding of where everyone is coming from and what is important to them will help you later on with finding solutions that everyone can agree to.
Allow each other time to process the information and to work out wants and needs, hopes and concerns. Some people might have done this in advance, others will need more time.
You could use facilitation techniques such as paired chats or people thinking by themselves and jotting thoughts down on post-it notes to be shared in the whole group. Find ways of gathering everyone's initial reactions and thoughts , rather than just those of a verbal few. For example you could have a go-round where everyone gets a turn to speak or set up an online survey tool.
Be as honest as you can about your own feelings. This can be difficult — if you're struggling to express things you could ask for extra space to get your words out. Equally, listen carefully to what everyone is saying and if you don't quite understand someone's position, ask for clarification. Resist the temptation to jump straight in with a proposal. Instead make some mental space to hear what other people think. If proposals are based on an understanding of everyone's needs and wants then it is much more likely that people will support it.
Putting forward a proposal too early is rarely a short-cut in an important discussion! Instead, it can waste time with everyone debating the ins and outs of an option that was never going to work, because it wasn't based on full information about everyone's needs. Once you've got a good understanding of what is important to people, you can move on to collecting all the ideas for moving forward.
It helps to then engage everyone in a broad ranging discussion where you can explore the pros and cons of different suggestions and how they might fit together.
Think about how you can address different people's hopes and concerns. When bringing up ideas take into account the views you've heard, and any objectives you've already agreed. If you are to come to a solution that works for everyone you'll really need to get your head around different needs and ideas. Be creative in your thinking, consensus thrives on mixing up lots of different ideas. Collect a range of ideas for solving the problem.
It is common for a group to get stuck debating one or two early ideas - by coming up with other possibilities you can help each other think more flexibly. Where possible these suggestions should bear in mind the concerns you've already heard, but be clear that at this stage they are only ideas. This can help you avoid a situation where people are overly attached to the first idea they like, or disproportionately threatened by ideas they don't like.
To generate ideas you could use techniques such as ideastorms or breaking into small groups. Draw on all the experience, knowledge and wisdom present in your group. Make sure that everyone is heard. In particular, try to encourage everyone to voice disagreements and reservations, which can be hard to do when a majority or a very vocal few are being enthusiastic.
This stage is also called synthesis, which means coming up with a proposal by combining elements from several different ideas or perspectives.
A good proposal will take into account and address the different hopes, concerns and needs that have been raised. In developing your proposal it might help to remind yourselves of the important issues that people have raised and the range of options that you have explored.
Which options or combinations of options might best address the issues raised? See also the section on Synthesis for a more in-depth explanation. Suggestions for making it work A summary of where you think the group and its different members are at can help everyone focus on finding a solution acceptable to all. Outline the emerging common ground as well as the unresolved differences: 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. Build 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 ideas. Ensure that everyone understands the proposal and check whether people have any concerns. Look for amendments that address these concerns. If it becomes obvious at this stage that some people have strong reservations, see whether you can come up with a different, better option. Ideally, write the proposal somewhere that everyone can see so you all have a shared idea of what you are discussing.
Otherwise ask the minute-taker to read out what they've written so everyone can at least hear it. Use techniques such as go-rounds and straw polls to gauge support for the proposal and to look for amendments. 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. Often groups get to a point in the discussion when it's easy to assume that agreement has been reached.
The facilitator might say something like "OK, looks like we all agree, let's move on to the next agenda point. A clear stage of testing for agreement helps to avoid that. By clearly stating the proposal and asking people to signal whether they agree or disagree, we get a much more accurate picture of whether consensus has been reached. Proposals rarely get wholehearted support from everyone, there is usually a spectrum from agreeing to disagreeing.
Commonly used options are: We go into more detail in Options for Agreement and disagreement but here's a quick summary:.
Blocks stop a proposal from going ahead and you'll need to look for a new proposal. Stand asides and reservations provide a way to express concerns, but allow the group to proceed with the decision.
Exactly how much agreement you need to 'have consensus' depends on the situation. If a few people stand aside or declare reservations, then the group could go ahead anyway, or decide to work on a new proposal. When unity is very important for this decision, then even one stand aside will be unacceptable, for example when deciding on a policy that you need to trust everyone will implement.
On the other hand a trial run of something might need less enthusiastic support from everyone. Clearly state the final proposal and check that everyone fully understands what is being proposed.
Does everyone understand the same thing? If it was written down and then amended you may need to re-write it for clarity! 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.
Check whether anyone has reservations, objections or needs to block. Ideally concerns should have already come out, but testing for them here before asking who supports the proposal creates a final safety net for anyone who hasn't been heard. Check for active agreement. If there are no blocks, check for active agreement from everyone. This can be done verbally, or by people waving their hands.
Watch out for silence or inaction and check for the reasons — it may be that someone has reservations that they didn't feel able to voice. Summarise the result and be explicit whether a decision has been reached. This will help with being clear whether a decision was reached or not and could be done by the facilitator. The proposal has passed. A group quickly loses energy for decision-making if things are decided and not implemented. Taking some time to work out the practical details and action points makes it much more likely that the decision will actually become reality.
See also the section on Accountability for ideas on how to support each other in making sure that tasks gets done. Agree enough detail so you are sure the decision will happen! Who needs to do what by when? How can the whole group check this has happened? Share out the tasks among the group and record these action points in the minutes for the meeting.
Some of you feel that we should build treehouses in the park to stop the developers, but we think we should try and raise money to buy the land. And squatting might slow the council down so we have time to raise the money.
I feel that we really need to stay as one group — I think if we split they might try to play one group off against the other. We're want to be clear that we are one group doing both of these things. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Remember, the block stops the rest of the group from going ahead, so use it if you really couldn't stay in the group if we followed this plan. Stand aside if you don't want to take part in the plans. 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.
I won't stop you though, and I'm happy to help a bit. OK, I think we've got consensus. Let's just check — hands up if you agree with the proposal Great, we have consensus, with one reservation.
Shall we split into two groups for now, and start ideastorming what needs doing for each, then we can bring it all back together at the end of the meeting? There are many different reasons why someone might not agree with a proposal. For example you might have fundamental issues with it and want to stop it from going ahead, or you might not have time to implement the decision or the idea just doesn't excite you.
Consensus decision-making recognises this — it's not trying to achieve unanimity but looks for a solution that everyone involved is OK with. Not all types of disagreement stop a group from reaching consensus. Think about it as a gradient or spectrum from completely agreeing to completely objecting to a proposal.
The words used to describe the different types of agreement and disagreement vary from group to group. It's important to be clear in your group what options you are using and what they mean.
Here are some common options:. 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. You might stand aside because you disagree with with the proposal: Or you might stand aside for pragmatic reasons, e. 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.
We need to look for a new proposal. A block 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. The group can either look for amendments to overcome the objection or return to the discussion stage to look for a new proposal. The block is a defining part of the consensus process, it means no decision can be taken without the consent of everyone in the group.
Ideally it should be a safety net that never needs to be used - the fact that the option is there means the group is required to take everyone's needs into account when forming a proposal. Because it is such a powerful tool, some groups have developed additional 'rules' about how and when it is to be used.
Some groups introduce a rule that the block is only to be used if a proposal goes against the core aims and principles of the group, or if a proposal may harm the organisation rather than because it goes against an individual's interests or ethics.
For example, a member of a peace group could legitimately block others from taking funding from a weapon's manufacturer. On the other hand, if they had a strong objection to receiving money from the tobacco industry this would be seen as a purely individual concern, and they wouldn't be allowed to stand in the group's way. Some people object that placing this kind of limitation on the reasons for blocking goes against the principle that every decision should have the consent of everyone involved.
Also, in practice, it can be hard to find agreement on whether a proposal is or isn't against the aims of the group. On the other hand, particularly in groups where 'natural' commitment to the collective is low for example because the membership is constantly changing, or the group is a very small part of people's lives then placing a limit on the reasons for the block can prevent abuse of power.
A variety of groups require anyone blocking to engage in a specific process to find a resolution, such as attending extra workshops or additional meetings. This provides a clear process for finding a way forward. The time commitment required for this also 'raises the bar', with the assumption that people will only block if they feel really strongly and are committed to finding a solution. Be aware though that 'raising the bar' like this will make it disproportionately hard for some people to block, for example if their time and energy are limited by health problems or caring responsibilities.
Especially in larger organisations it is common to have a last resort voting option, in case blocks cannot be resolved. This tends to only kick in after a lot of effort has been made to find a solution, e. However, if one or more people block the proposal, the blocking persons organize a series of solution-oriented meetings with one or two proposal advocates to create a new proposal that addresses the same issues as the original proposal.
The new proposal goes to the next meeting, where it probably will pass. If a new proposal is not created, the original proposal comes to the next meeting for a 75 percent super-majority vote, and it will probably pass.
In 25 years at N Street Cohousing this process has happened only twice, with two solution-oriented meetings each—that is, only four of these small meetings total in 25 years. Excerpt from Busting the Myth that Consensus-with-unanimity is good for communities Careful listening, summarising and synthesis help us reach a good knowledge and understanding of what everyone needs, and find solutions everyone can accept.
Listening is a skill that is often under-estimated and under-valued. However, it is an essential part of effective communication, and requires an active effort to do well. When we really listen we try to suspend our own interpretations and opinions about what someone is saying.
Instead we focus on trying to understand another person's position and their underlying needs. Often in a meeting setting, listening is about focusing on all the different opinions and needs being put forward.
A major objective is making sure that points don't get lost, especially when they are put forward by someone who lacks confidence, or who is representing a minority viewpoint. In a situation where a group is having difficulty in hearing a particular perspective, you might choose to give one or two people focused attention to help them express it. You could support them with clarifying questions e. Offering a summary of the discussion can help reassure speakers they are being heard, and help to focus meetings.
Usually this will involve pulling out key points of a discussion to help people think about ways forward. Occasionally, summarising an individual contribution can help - for example, if someone spoke a long time, and you want to check you all had an accurate understanding of what they were trying to say.
It helps to offer the summary tentatively and create space for people to correct you if you get it wrong. Use phrases such as: Did I miss anything out?
Therefore it is very important to give people the chance to correct any biases towards your own perspective! Not to mention helping you out with things you forgot. Some people find it helpful to take notes as the discussion happens. This makes a succinct and accurate summary much easier. Bringing together different ideas and trying to find a proposal that is agreeable to everyone is at the core of consensus. We call this process synthesis: It is common for people to enter a discussion with strong views on concrete options they do and don't like.
This is particularly the case when the discussion starts with only one option on the table, and the group can get polarised between who wants it and who doesn't. Finding a way forward often involves taking a step backwards and exploring the reasons why people are into different options. Once you've identified what people are trying to achieve, it is often possible to find new possibilities, where all the needs are met. A volunteer-run community shop was trying to decide whether to open an extra day at the weekend.
Digging deeper into the different concerns revealed that everyone agreed that it would help the shop to thrive if they were open at times when most full time workers were able to go shopping. However, some members were not at all keen to lose their own weekends. Identifying these core issues enabled them to look for new solutions: At the beginning of this guide we said that 'consensus is based on a respectful dialogue between equals'.
However, even with the best intentions in the world, consensus groups often replicate the inequalities of wider society. None of us enter a meeting with a clean slate - we bring all kinds of different life experiences and expectations into the room, that impact on how likely we are to come away with our needs met. These differences don't mean that the people who have more power are 'bad'. However, to effectively use consensus we need to tackle these power dynamics.
Addressing deeply ingrained inequalities is an ongoing process which can be painful and frustrating, but the rewards are better decisions and more genuine liberation and connection to each other. However, a group should try hard to ensure that the people who are already most dis-empowered by society don't end up doing most of the work in tackling a group's power dynamics. This is a complex topic that brings up strong feelings and differing views.
Here we've included some tips that we have found helpful. Have a look at some people have more power than others for ideas about tackling power imbalances in a meeting. Look for support from others in the group. If you think you have too much power, chat to other people in the same situation and see if you can support each other let go of some of that power. If you feel dis-empowered, sharing experiences and exploring strategies with other people who feel the same may help.
Raise the issues with the people involved. This could be by asking someone for a one to one chat, bringing something up in a meeting, or responding when something happens.
If you are feeling vulnerable, hurt and angry you have the right to say so, regardless of whether other people respond defensively, or don't like the way you say it. At the same time, remember that in most situations there are lots of different dynamics at play, not just the ones that are most present for you. When your challenge is about an issue that doesn't affect you directly, then it can require extra care to put your message across effectively.
For example if the person you are challenging feels you are competing to prove you're more 'right on' than them, they may resist the content of your message. It can be more effective to approach a person with compassion and a willingness to acknowledge that you too make mistakes. Listen carefully when someone challenges you, even if you can't see it straight away, or you think they've not understood your intentions.
Hearing specific details might help you get your head round what they're saying - but be careful not to interrogate them! The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus proponents, is potentially less willingness to defend or act upon the decision. Majority voting cannot measure consensus.
Indeed - so many 'for' and so many 'against' - it measures the very opposite, the degree of dissent. Consensus voting, in contrast, the Modified Borda Count, MBC, can identify the consensus of any electorate, whenever such a consensus exists. Furthermore, the rules laid down for this procedure can be the very catalyst of consensus. Outside of Western culture, multiple other cultures have used consensus decision-making.
The resulting agreements are expected to be followed, and range from advice and warnings to compensation and exile. Although the modern popularity of consensus decision-making in Western society dates from the women's liberation movement of the s, [59] and anti-nuclear movement [60] the origins of formal consensus can be traced significantly further back.
The most notable of early Western consensus practitioners are the Religious Society of Friends , or Quakers, who adopted the technique as early as the 17th century. Anabaptists , including some Mennonites , have a history of using consensus decision-making [62] and some believe Anabaptists practiced consensus as early as the Martyrs' Synod of In particular it influenced their distrust of expert-led courtrooms and to "be clear about process" and convene in a way that assures that "everyone must be heard".
Next by b Nicholas Cusanus in Then by c Jean-Charles de Borda in And finally by f Peter Emerson in With the possible exception of e , none of these 'inventors' knew anything about the inventions of any of their predecessors.
The Oxford English Dictionary credits Mollie Hunter — with following quotation regarding consensus: Japanese companies normally use consensus decision-making, meaning that unanimous support on the board of directors is sought for any decision. It must first be signed by the lowest level manager, and then upwards, and may need to be revised and the process started over. One tradition in support of rough consensus is the tradition of humming rather than countable hand-raising; this allows a group to quickly tell the difference between "one or two objectors" or a "sharply divided community", without making it easy to slip into " majority rule ".
Much of the business of the IETF is carried out on mailing lists , where all parties can speak their view at all times. In , Robert Rocco Cottone published a consensus-based model of professional decision-making for counselors and psychologists. Conflicts are resolved by consensually agreed on arbitrators who are defined early in the negotiation process.
The United States Bureau of Land Management 's policy is to seek to use collaborative stakeholder engagement as standard operating practice for natural resources projects, plans, and decision-making except under unusual conditions such as when constrained by law, regulation, or other mandates or when conventional processes are important for establishing new, or reaffirming existing, precedent.
Over the last three centuries they have evolved a number of practices peculiar to their aims. Every 20 or 30 years, each yearly meeting's consensus practices are re-codified in a new edition of that yearly meeting's Faith and Practice book.
As a notable example of the failure of unanimity in the Western canon , New Testament historian Elaine Pagels cites the Sanhedrin 's unanimous vote to convict Jesus of Nazareth. Unanimity, in other words, became a priority where it had been an anathema. Some formal models based on graph theory attempt to explore the implications of suppressed dissent and subsequent sabotage of the group as it takes action. High-stakes decision-making, such as judicial decisions of appeals courts, always require some such explicit documentation.
Consent however is still observed that defies factional explanations. Another method to achieve more agreement to satisfy a strict threshold a voting process under which all members of the group have a strategic incentive to agree rather than block. Once they receive that incentive, they may undermine or refuse to implement the agreement in various and non-obvious ways. In general voting systems avoid allowing offering incentives or "bribes" to change a heartfelt vote. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For other uses, see Consensus disambiguation. This article is about the decision making process. For the distributed computing problem, see Consensus computer science. For the Wikipedia policy on consensus, see Wikipedia: This section may contain too much repetition or redundant language. Please help improve it by merging similar text or removing repeated statements. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: Northwest Intentional Communities Association guide to consensus.
Northwest Intentional Communities Association. Archived from the original on February 9, Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-making. Wynrib, [] 2 S. Creating a Life Together: Archived from the original DOC on Archived from the original on December 12, Northwest Cooperative Development Center.
Archived from the original PDF on March 14, Archived from the original on February 26, Grassroots Activist Interventions in Regimes of Knowledge". In Haworth, Robert H. Out of the Ruins: Archived from the original on October 15, Teaching Consensus-building in the Classroom.
What is a Consensus Process? Archived at the Wayback Machine. State of Maine Best Practices. Lawrence Butler; Amy Rothstein.
Food Not Bombs Publishing. Archived from the original on October 26, Archived from the original on June 19, Archived from the original on Twinkle twinkle little fingers — consensus in action".
Archived from the original PDF on July 14, Archived from the original PDF on September 27, The Collective Book on Collective Process. Methods for observing the illusion of unanimity".
The Culture of Wikipedia. Retrieved 10 June Consensus Is Not Unanimity: The Vernal Education Project. Archived February 13, , at the Wayback Machine. World Council of Churches. The Logic of Democracy: Individual instruments express their differences, but, in working together for The Highest Good, those instruments can create so much more.
Where can I get more information about your philosophies for world change? These groups or individuals will be chosen by consensus based on objective qualifications for their role. How will this process work with groups larger than your initial 50? How does everyone get an equal voice as the number of community members grows?
What about disputes and other decision situations where dramatic emotions may become involved? In these situations personal responsibility is encouraged by looking within first with the consciousness that we create, promote or allow everything that happens to us: Then, if clarity is still needed between the parties involved, the disputes are settled by the following flexible options, always bringing in love and creativity:.
This system is flexible with each situation, and the parties involved can choose the options. While the Focus Hub involves more of the work being done in the 12 areas, there still is a group support that takes place there, and, if there is an issue where one is lapsing from that consciousness of The Highest Good , it will be obvious to the group.
However, the Essence Hubs consist of a group of up to 12 who are a real support system for each of those members. This is really where individual issues will be seen, and, if the issue cannot be dealt with within the group, then it goes to the Dispute Resolving Format and then, if still no progress, to the Expand Hub for possible dismissal.
What happens when a decision needs to be made and it is clear just one or two people are determined to block the decision? Full-consensus decision making, once achieved, will come with a two-step emergency procedure.
You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. That, in essence, is the higher service to which we are all being called. One Community operates under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.