consensus decision-making - rhizome

Consensus Decision-making 1 www.rhizome.coop

Consensus is a phrase that gets thrown around alot. We're told that the United Nations reaches aconsensus, for example. Politicians and journalistsspeak of consensus emerging around someimportant issue or other. What they are talkingabout seems to be a significant majority view.What they’re not talking about is consensusdecision-making as we at Rhizome understand it.

Consensus is often referred to as a decision-makingprocess, and it is. There are several such processes, acommon one being formal, or simple, consensus. Butwe see it, first and foremost, as a set of values or astate of mind that supports people to work togethercollaboratively. Our experience is that without theright state of mind, consensus cannot fulfil itspotential for delivering high quality decisions thathave the genuine support of a group.

In this guide we'll look at how the state of mind thatis consensus helps underpin an effective decision-making process, and how that process can, in turn,draw out and strengthen the values of consensus. It'sa virtuous circle. We'll also look at some criticismsof consensus; share some of our philosophical andtechnical understanding of the consensus decision-making process; touch on some history of how itdeveloped; and suggest resources for furtherreading.

So what is consensus?There's a short anecdote which helps to illustratewhat consensus is:

Two stonemasons are carving blocks of stone. Whenasked what he’s doing the first mason says: “I’mcarving this block of stone”. When asked the samequestion the second mason says: “I’m building acathedral”.

Consensus is a decision-making process that, whenused with a co-operative state of mind, allowsgroups to come together and take inspired andcreative decisions. It supports individuals to pooltheir power and work together as equals to produceresults far better than they could produce alone.

Rhizome guide to

Consensus DDecision-mmaking

Oppressive behaviour? Oppressive behaviour is essentially any behaviourthat puts down or disempowers anyone within thegroup, conscious or unconscious sexism, racism,or classism are examples. Whenever we makeassumptions based on prejudice or stereotypes, orwhen we use our own power to get what we wantat the expense of others, we're guilty ofoppressive behaviour. This can be as simple as themen in the group doing most of the talking, usingthe social power they hold because of their genderto dominate, with little or no thought given to theimpact this has on the women in the group.

Margins and Mainstreams?What's marginal and what's mainstream varyfrom group to group – being marginalised can, ofcourse, occur because of disability, social class,gender, race, age, and sexuality. But it can alsohappen because of an opinion a person holds, orhow much time they can dedicate to the groupbecause of work and family commitments or howarticulate a speaker they are. Margins andmainstreams are not necessarily fixed. It's possibleto be in the mainstream for one part of a groupmeeting, and in the margin for another.

Photo: (CC) Sustainable Flatbush

It's a process that can deepen the connection of agroup. It can help a group to challenge andtransform oppressive behaviour. It values those onthe margins of a group as much as (or even morethan at times) those in the mainstream of the group.

2 Consensus Decision-makingwww.rhizome.coop

Consensus decision-making is:• An acknowledgement that we can achieve more

together than we can alone – it's a group process.

• A way of finding the best decision for a diversegroup of people who all share some commonground - often shared values. Consensus worksbecause the common ground is stronger than thedifference within the group. With strong commonvalues or aims groups can be diverse and see thatdiversity as a strength.

• A way of agreeing to disagree. Consensus isn'tunanimous agreement. It's unanimous consent.Everyone consents to the decision even if theydisagree. Consensus offers a range of ways to relateto a proposed decision that reflect humanpsychology. For example it allows for people tostand aside from implementing a decision they arelukewarm about whilst giving their blessing to therest of the group to go ahead (consenting withoutagreeing).

• A pulling together of ideas to build the strongestavailable decision.

• A commitment to challenge domineering and self-centred behaviour in ourselves and others, workingfor the common good over personal benefit.

• A process that asks us to put aside our personalcertainty and create a group certainty. This candeepen trust and foster better group working skillsalong the way, rather than weakening groups asmajority-based decision systems often can.

And the states of mind that we've referred to areimplicit in this list – a genuine willingness to:

• Work co-operatively as part of a group, and trustothers in the group to be doing the same.

• Recognise that there may be many opinions all ofequal value to your own.

• Listen to, and hear those opinions, and work toensure the group knows that they are valued.

• Look for solutions that work for the wider groupand not just yourself, paying special attention tothose at the margins of the group.

• Supportively challenge prejudice and abuses ofpower, and have our own behaviour challengedbecause we acknowledge that none of us are free ofunwelcome social conditioning.

Misconceptions about consensus decision-makingThere are many common misconceptions aboutconsensus, even in groups that use it. Whenconsensus is used badly it can be a long andfrustrating process that fails to live up to itsreputation for providing an alternative to the manyoppressive behaviours common in group dynamics.Worse still it can actively create poor dynamics. Butthese are criticisms of consensus done badly and themisconceptions they lead to are not true of well-functioning consensus. So let's start by clearing up afew of the misconceptions.

Consensus decision-making is not:A significant majority: consensus decision-making seeks to avoid thepotential divisiveness of majority/minority decisions.Whenever there’s a minority that neither agreeswith or consents to a decision, there’s potential for:

• Resentment which in turn can breed ongoingconflict.

• Perpetuation of social or group dynamics thatalienate a specific sort of person or opinion, aspecific margin within the group or society.

• Lack of ownership of decisions leading to poorimplementation of tasks.

• A culture of lobbying – trying to acquire supportfor a point of view outside of meetings, which candamage accountability.

For those reasons consensus focuses on hearingthose at the margins of a group, those traditionallyin the minority, and ensuring that final proposalsinclude their perspectives. This does not mean that amargin always holds sway (sometimes referred to asthe tyranny of the minority), but it does mean that itshould always feel heard.

Clearly a decision that 80% of a group agree with isstronger than one which only 51% agree with, butit’s not consensus. There may be times in whichworking towards a high level of agreement is moreappropriate than consensus decision-making becausegood consensus requires a deeper level ofcommitment and a deeper sense of shared valuesthan most decision-making systems. If that’s notpresent, a significant majority may be your best bet.There are several 'near consensus' approaches thatcan help here, which we’ll look at later in this guide.


We talk until we all agree: People often speak of consensus as unanimity. Whenasked how they make decisions they will tell youthat they discuss the issue until they are all inagreement. If strong unanimous agreement can bereached, great. But there are issues with seekingunanimity as the ultimate goal:

• Unanimity can be intolerant of diversity. It tends tobuild a culture of uniformity. Consensus is aboutunity not uniformity. The built-in mechanisms thatencourage and allow individuals to consent whilstdisagreeing provide an important safety valve andencourage diversity and tolerance.

• It can also lead to overlong meetings that sapenergy from a group rather than energise it.

• Unanimity can often only be found bycompromising and accepting the lowest commondenominator option, which can be a weak andpointless decision. Consensus on the other handasks people to be flexible in seeking the highestcommon factor.

For a full and detailed critique of unanimousdecision-making see Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making by Tim Hartnett (more details in theResources section)

We talk until you all agree with me: Sadly quite a common variation of the above. Thismentality of having the “right answer ” can begenuine and even well-meaning, but it isdisempowering for groups and usually results inunanimity by browbeating rather than a sincereagreement. Consensusworks on the principle thatwe work in groups becausewe are stronger throughour diversity of experienceand ideas. It appreciatesthat the best decision willusually be a synthesis ofthe best elements of thepossible options. Theseprinciples are rarelycompatible with oneperson’s vision, howeverclear it may be andhowever articulate andcharismatic they may be.

A meeting with hand signals: This is a description that’s become common in someactivist circles. Consensus decision-making hasbecome confused with the specific facilitationtechniques often used in meetings, in this case handsignals. In other words consensus becomes confusedwith any meeting at which there’s an attempt tofacilitate for equality and participation. Consensus is(usually) a facilitated process because it does have astrong commitment to accessibility, inclusion andequality…so we’re a small part of the way there withthis definition, but no way near all of the way. Andof course there are some critiques of hand signals.(www.rhizome.coop/blog/2011/08/17/sticking-your-hand-up-to-oppression/)

Consensus minus one: Some groups have found consensus hard to achieve,but have an ideological commitment to it so they’vefound a short cut here and there. Consensus minusone is one of those shortcuts. Often it starts tohappen without any formal agreement that it's howa group operates. Every participant in consensus hasthe right (and responsibility) to block proposals thatrun counter to the groups shared and stated purposeand ethos. The act of blocking is one of the mostmisunderstood and contentious parts of theconsensus decision-making process. For that reasonwe’ll focus on it more later in this guide. For manygroups this is where they get stuck. And so they’vecreated a rule that allows them to overrule a singleblock if all those not blocking agree to overrule it. Insome groups this has crept up from a single block tomultiple blocks where the mainstream of the groupconsiders those blocks to be inappropriate, forwhatever reason. Essentially, this is significantmajority by another name with all the dangers thatentails, even though the majority can often be 90% ofthe group or more. It can and will still alienatepeople.

Consensus decision-making: Who?Why do people choose consensus? And who arethese people anyway? Some groups using consensusare searching for a genuinely egalitarian andinclusive model of democracy. Others because theyare committed to participation because theyunderstand that it delivers stronger decisions thatstand the test of time. Consensus is currently usedby a wide variety of groups.


A few examples are:

• Many co-operatives and community groups suchas the Tulsa Symphony Orchestra (www.gtrnews.com/greater-tulsa-reporter/1497/tulsa-symphony)and, of course, us at Rhizome.

• Co-housing projects and housing co-operativessuch as the Threshold Centre in the UK(www.thresholdcentre.org.uk/) or Heartwood Co-housing in the USA(www.heartwoodcohousing.com/).

• Grassroots protest movements and non-hierarchical campaigning groups such as the Campfor Climate Action (www.climatecamp.org.uk/), theOccupy movement(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement),Earth First! (wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_First!), andStop New Nuclear network(www.stopnewnuclear.org.uk/).

• Entire communities such as the town of Casper,California(casparinstitute.org/lib/artConsensus.htm), USAand the Fristaden Christiania in Copenhagen(wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania),Denmark.

Consensus Decision-making – Why?Why does consensus deliver a superior form ofparticipation and democracy? Partly because it'soften used where there is strong sense of group,which it then strengthens. Partly it’s down to thestated intention to treat all people as equals. Partlyit’s down to quirks of the method, prime amongstthem giving all participants in the process an equalright of veto over any and all decisions. Partly it’sdown to consensus being a facilitated approach. Andpartly it’s down to people’s experience of consensusdelivering high quality decisions that the wholegroup feels comfortable with (if not inspired by).

Sense of groupConsensus is used by groups: not loose or accidentalformations of people, but by groups that have adefinite sense of themselves as a group (at least inthat moment, if not in the long term). In her bookTruth or Dare Starhawk calls this sense group mind. (www.starhawk.org/writings/truth-dare.html) Otherterms for it include common ground, shared values,and group vision.

Whatever the phrase a group uses, it’s a conscioussense of the group being more than the sum of itsparts. That sense of the group being able to achievefar more than any one individual makes itworthwhile for individuals to allow the groupprecedence over their personal ambition. This makesconsensus the perfect approach for many co-operatives, community groups, or activist affinitygroups. (wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_group)

Case Study: Heartwood Co-housingConsensus decision making is one of thecornerstones of Heartwood. In majority rulesdecision making, participants align themselves ondifferent sides of an issue in opposition to eachother and then try to persuade the undecideds tojoin their side. There are clear winners and losers.

Consensus decision making turns that process onits head. Rather than expending energy onpersuading why your position is right and theother is wrong, energy is focused on hearing all ofthe wants, needs, and concerns and then workingwith those to sculpt a proposal that best fitsthem... It is a wholly different process, one whichvalues deep listening, cooperation, and maturity.

Consensus does not mean everyone getting theirway. That’s where the maturity comes in. Everydecision is looked at from the perspective ofwhat’s in the best interest of the community as awhole... And because there are no losers, everyonehas buy-in in the decision and supports theimplementation. We move forward together withno disgruntled minority left behind.

We do have alternative decision making optionsavailable if consensus is not appropriate for aparticular decision (urgency, conflict of interest,etc), but we rarely go to those alternatives.

Consensus is about much more than makingdecisions. It’s really a reflection of the quality ofrelationships that characterize Heartwood...Weare all on this journey together and we supporteach other in the process. Taken fromwww.heartwoodcohousing.com/


But groups don't need to be long-term to useconsensus. A group could come together to organisea one-off community festival and use consensus aslong as they had clear purpose, that sense that theycould achieve more together than apart, and acommitment to using consensus.

The best of intentions – supporting diversityConsensus is an explicitly egalitarian andparticipatory process and as such it attracts userswho already have a commitment to behaving in thatway. So consensus is the preferred option for manyanti-discrimination groups, and those for whomhierarchy is a problem – such as some co-operatives,anarchist groups and networks. But it's not exclusiveto those groups.

Participation and deep decision-makingMany groups or organisations are looking for aneffective way to make decisions that maximiseopportunities for participation They don'tnecessarily have an ideological objection tohierarchy. It's by no means impossible for suchgroups to use formal consensus decision-making.

The state of mind and the process of formalconsensus enshrine deep participation.They provide the opportunity to makeuncommonly strong decisionsbecause each proposal emergesfrom the breadth of the group’sexperience and ideas, and becauseeveryone's consent is required forthat proposal to become a decision.

A local authority or communitycouncil could use consensus in adecision-making dialogue with the publicover services, for example, as long as the remitwas clear (which decisions were on offer and whichwere not), and as long as the authority agreed to bebound by the decision. In fact it would be ideal whena high level of commitment to the outcome wasrequired. And of course there are alternatives toformal consensus that share many of its qualities.We'll come to these later.

The block – supporting equal power and preserving group visionIn consensus every individual has the right to blockany proposal at any stage if the proposalundermines the cohesion or integrity of the group.That’s a huge amount of power and a hugeresponsibility. It's also one of the attractions ofconsensus. Although the block can be verycontentious, it's a great leveller.

For those groups who haven’t achieved thenecessary shared state of mind it can also be a hugeproblem, with people vetoing proposals forindividual reasons and not with a sense of group inmind. But used well, and well facilitated, the blocknot only equalises power but keeps a group true toit's stated aims, and principles. And that makes theblock a radical safety valve that keeps groupsworking to their highest shared ideals.

Facilitation – supporting co-operationConsensus assumes facilitation - that is a consciouseffort to make the process easier for its participantsby paying attention to the emotional and physicalwell-being of the group, by intervening to ensure

that discussion flows and is genuinely opento all. For most groups this entails

appointing one or more individuals tolook after the process. Some groupsmay say they reach consensuswithout facilitation. More likelythey do so without a facilitator, butthey’re functioning well enough

that they share the roles of facilitatorwithout even thinking about it. In

other words they're collectively doingfacilitation.

The use of facilitation in consensus provides somereassurances that the process will be more equitable.It’s far more than simply deciding between a go-round or a full group discussion for the next stage ofthe agenda. In a consensus setting having afacilitator or facilitation team in place ensures thatsomeone out there is consciously monitoring thelevel of equality and is challenging informalhierarchy or any oppressive behaviour. More thanthat, they can gently and regularly remind themeeting to work towards their highest intentions, toco-operate rather than compete, to aspire to build acathedral rather than simply carve a block of stone.

aspirree tto build aa ccatheedrral

rratheerr tthan ssimplycarrvee aa bblock oof

stonee


7 Steps of Consensus Decision-makingWe’ve talked about what consensus is and is not andwhy groups might choose to use it. But we haven’tyet got down to the detail about how the processworks. Here's an overview of how a consensusdecision might flow, and where those values we'vetalked about come in.There are quite a few models of consensus out therewhich prescribe what to do at each stage of theprocess (start with an ideastorm, then have a go-round....and so on).

We feel that those details depend too much onindividual group needs and culture, so what wepresent here focuses on what the needs of the groupare at each stage, and leaves the details of how tomeet them up to you. We're also concentrating onthat all-important state of mind which provides thecontext and infuses a good consensus process. So tothe flow…

Ensure equalunderstanding of &

access to thediscussion.

Open-minded &inclusive discussion tohear diverse voices andopinions & empathise

with concerns.

Look for commonground of the wholegroup, not just the

mainstream.

Co-operate tostrengthen the

proposal & find thedeepest level of

unity.

Shareresponsibilities.

Support development& sharing of skills

and knowledge.

Take time to evaluate

and learn, andrestore group

harmony.

Finda proposal

Discussthe proposal

Implementthe decision

Reflectand evaluate

Consensus:a flow of Process & State of Mind

Introduceand clarify process

and agenda

& State of Mind of Consensus

Process

Broaddiscussion

Respect those whowish to stand aside.

Welcome any block thatupholds group integrity.

Test for unity.

Makethe decision


Step 1: Be clear and ensure your clarity is shared These first few minutes can be crucial for framingwhat happens in the rest of the discussion. If thegroup aren’t clear on the decision to be made or theprocess to be used you can waste a lot of time andcause unnecessary confusion, even conflict. Commonexamples of problems caused by lack of clarityinclude:

• Discussing issues you simply don’t have enoughinformation to decide upon.

• Talking at cross purposes and then having to taketime to untangle the mess.

• Excluding newcomers who haven’t had aninduction to the group's process and aren’t familiarwith the agenda.

All this, and more, can be avoided simply bychecking in with the group and having a shortdiscussion on what the group think the agenda itemis about. Many people would say that it’s obviouswhat we’re talking about, but, as we’ve been heardto utter on many occasions, 'my obvious is oftendifferent from your obvious'. In terms of thatconsensus state of mind, this shared clarityempowers everyone to take part in a discussion asequals, challenges any jargon and assumptions beingused by individuals or cliques to give themselves asense of power, and sends a message that everyoneis welcome.

Step 2: Have a broad and inclusive discussion – inclusive of wide range of people and ideas.

The aim of the game here is to ensure that thediscussion is wide enough for people to build a realsense of ownership around the issue; to explore avariety of ideas; and, vitally, to hear people’sconcerns. Bottom line in consensus – if concernsaren’t dealt with adequately, a group cannot reachconsensus. To really attain that consensual state ofmind, there needs to be a conscious effort to hear allconcerns, especially those of the margins of thegroup, however unpalatable they are to the group'smainstream.

This can feel like precious time the group doesn’thave, but it ensures a stronger outcome with ahigher level of group commitment, leading to farbetter implementation. It also builds greaterunderstanding in the group, which provides longterm strength and resilience. Time well spent.

Step 3: Pull together, or synthesise, a proposal that arises from the best of all the group’s ideas, whilst simultaneously acknowledging concerns.

That’s a pretty tall order and a group won’t alwaysget it right at the first go. There may be some timespent moving back and forth into discussion untilthe final pieces come together to give you anappropriate proposal. The key thing here is that theproposal is inclusive – it doesn’t marginalise anyone.This is a moment in consensus when a group canchoose between being fully inclusive or glossingover difference and applying subtle (and not sosubtle) pressure on minorities to conform. Inclusioncan be effected by too little time being given toreach a widely supported synthesised proposal.Don't let time pressure open up fault lines in thegroup that may never close.

Step 4: Friendly amendments – tweak the proposal to make it even stronger.

You’re looking for the best possible proposal thatyou can formulate with the people, time, andinformation that you’ve got. Are there any nigglingdoubts that can be addressed by a change oflanguage or a tweak to the idea? After a littlereflection (take a tea break) are there any ways inwhich the proposal can be improved upon? Theseare known as friendly amendments. What they arenot is an attempt to water down a proposal so farthat it becomes meaningless – death by a thousandamendments. Nothing friendly in that thinking.

Step 5: Test for consensus – do we have good quality agreement?

So far the flow we’ve presented could be for anydecision-making system looking to maximiseparticipation. It’s at Step 5 that it becomes uniquelyconsensus. That’s because this is where we entertainthe possibility of consenting rather than agreeingand of blocking. So let’s reflect a minute. We’ve gota shared agreement on the issue we’re discussing.We’ve given it the time it needs to explore diverseperspectives, to hear concerns and possible concernsand out of that we’ve drawn together a proposal thatseems to have the energy of the group behind it.We’ve paused and then tried to make the proposaleven stronger, taking into account some concerns wehadn’t heard clearly enough before. We’ve restatedthe proposal so we’re all clear what we’re beingasked to agree to (and if not, we clarify).


Now the facilitator asks us 3questions:

1. Any blocks? Does anyone feelthat this proposal runs contraryto the shared vision of the groupand as such will damage theintegrity of the group,potentially even causing peopleto leave? If you’ve done thework well to this point, theanswer will usually be “no”. Butlet’s not assume…. give peopletime, and if there are no blocksmove on to the next question.However if there are blocks youneed to back up – is it enough toamend the proposal or do youneed to return to the broaddiscussion (which obviouslywasn’t broad enough first timeround) and look for a newproposal? You may need topause and take a look at themeeting dynamics - how comethe group hasn't heard thisconcern up to this point? Is themeeting space not safe enoughfor people to articulateconcerns? Are there problems inunderstanding orcommunication that the grouphasn't addressed?

The use of the block in consensus

In a well functioning consensus group the use of the block is sorare as almost to be unheard of. Consensus lore says that anindividual should block no more than the fingers on one hand in alifetime. To get to the point in a process at which someone feelsmoved strongly enough to stop a proposal from going any further,a group has to have ignored some pretty significant warning signs.The quality of listening, observation, inclusion has to havedropped well below the standard expected of a group committedto equality, access and participation. And given that blocks areused to prevent a group taking an action that runs contrary to itscore aims and values, the group also has to be going significantlyoff course. In our well-functioning group, the block is notsomething to be afraid of, but to be welcomed. If someone blocks itbrings the group back to itself, it sense of self, and its core aimsand values.

And that makes the block a radical safety valve that keeps groupsworking to their highest shared ideals.

That said, there are different definitions of the block. Werecommend that the block be seen as a principled objection – aswe've described above. This gives a group firm criteria they canuse to determine whether a block is appropriate, should there everbe an issue. It also focuses all blocks on the group's values and notpersonal values. But some groups and facilitators see it simply as amajor objection – a fundamental problem with a proposal, whichcould include one based on personal values. However, once we'refocused on personal values things can get very messy. Oneperson's major objection because of their dearly held personalvalues might clash with another's dearly held support for an idea,and suddenly we're into the territory of immovable objects andunstoppable forces.

Case Study: The Hundredth Monkey Co-op –principled objection or personal concern?

The Hundredth Monkey was a small ethical retailworkers' co-op on the east coast of Scotland. Asethical retailers they marked Buy Nothing Day eachyear. One year they placed anti-consumerist art onthe walls of their shop, made space for a sofa,played campaigning videos, and so on. For somestaff this wasn't enough. So in one co-op meeting aproposal was made to close for the day. There wasa lot of energy for the proposal, and the case for itwas argued strongly.

But one co-op member had significant concerns – itwas one of the busiest Saturdays before Christmas,and for a struggling co-op the day's takings werevery important. The outcome? What seemed like anunstoppable proposal was decisively dropped.Why? Because the proponents of it could see thatthe idea was causing real distress to their fellow co-op member. She didn't block. It wasn't a blockingissue – there was no question that closing wouldhave contradicted the core values of a radical co-op.But her personal concern was deemed tooimportant to ignore.


2. Any stand asides? Does anyone disagree with theproposal enough, on a personal level, that theydon’t want to take part in implementing it (but ishappy for the rest of the group to go ahead,without feeling in any way a lesser part of thegroup for it)? It’s worth checking here that therearen’t too many stand asides as that’s an obvioussign of a lukewarm response to a proposal. And wecan do better than lukewarm.

3. Do we have consensus? Assuming there are noblocks, and no more than a manageable number ofstand asides, can we assume that we haveconsensus? No – never assume. Ask the questionand insist on a response. Lack of response mayindicate “I’ll consent to anything just as long as thisinterminable meeting ends” syndrome.

And this is where a lot of groups finish and piledown the pub to celebrate another well madedecision. But what about Step 6 and 7?

Step 6: Make it happen. Making the decision isjust the start of alonger process, andunless there aredefinite steps taken toensure that peoplesign up to specifictasks, with specificdeadlines and so on, decisions are meaningless. Forsome decisions it may be as simple as typing up theagreed form of words and filing it, but that’s still anaction and still needs someone to make it happen.For other decisions it may need complex timelinesand multiple volunteers or staff members to engagein taking the decision forward.

But if your consensus process is working well, thiswon’t be the drag it often is at the end of fractiousmeetings when people are tired and grumpy. Intheory the group has just made a high qualitydecision that it has energy for – so ride that wave ofenthusiasm and get folk signed up!

Remember that state of mind – does the groupcontinue to apply the same values here? Doeseveryone have equal access to roles and tasks, arepeople's skills and interests nurtured? Are theirpersonal circumstances respected (time available tocontribute to making the idea happen, financialresources and so on).

Step 7: Evaluate. It's worth taking a moment to reflect on the decisionbefore launching into the next one. Are there anybad feelings that need to be aired? Is it worthactually celebrating a decision well-made?

That's the overview. For more on the detailed stepby step process and how to facilitate it, see our otherGuides on consensus

The values of the consensus process: in summaryConsensus works. Yet there are many groups forwhom it's a real struggle. They find themselveswatering down the process, making poor decisions,and dealing with informal hierarchy, and poor groupdynamics. But there are enough groups who make itwork well, and yet more who at least achievemoments of clarity in which they see the promise ofconsensus, that it’s worth pursuing. When it’sworking well consensus delivers well supporteddecisions based on the best of all the ideas of adiverse group. It addresses people’s concerns. And itreaffirms the sense of group and leaves peopleenergised.

When not to use consensus…In Truth or Dare, Starhawk wrote some oft-quotedwords on when not to use consensus. They stand re-quoting, and we've added a few thoughts:

When there is no group in mind: A group thinkingprocess cannot work effectively unless the group iscohesive enough to generate shared attitudes andperceptions. When deep divisions exist within agroup’s bonding over their individual desires,consensus becomes an exercise in frustration.

When there are no good choices: Consensus processcan help a group find the best possible solution to aproblem, but it is not an effective way to make aneither-or choice between evils, for members will neverbe able to agree which is worse. If the group has tochoose between being shot and hung, flip a coin.When a group gets bogged down trying to make adecision, stop for a moment and consider: Are weblocked because we are given an intolerablesituation? Are we being given the illusion, but notthe reality, of choice? Might our most empoweringact be to refuse to participate in this farce?

A group circle on the ecotopiabiketour in Poland, 2006

Photo: (cc) pedalofilo


When they can see the whites of your eyes: Inemergencies, in situations where urgent andimmediate action is necessary, appointing atemporary leader may be the wisest course of action.

When the issue is trivial: I have known groups todevote half and hour to trying to decide by consensuswhether to spend forty minutes or a full hour atlunch. Remember consensus is a thinking process –where there is nothing to think about, flip a coin.

When the group has insufficient information:When you’re lost in the hills, and no one knows theway home, you cannot figure out how to get there byconsensus. Send out scouts. Ask: Do we have theinformation we need to solve this problem? Can weget it?Starhawk ‘Truth or Dare’. © Miriam Simos,published by Harper and Rowwww.starhawk.org/writings/truth-dare.html

We'd add:

When there’s no collective decision to be made:Let's illustrate with an example - a group ofactivists gather to plan and take action. Perhapssome have come as organised affinity groups.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_group)Perhaps others are there as individuals. Theydiscuss tactics and identify potential targets and asthe meeting progresses ideas emerge and energygathers around them. There comes a stage where arange of ideas for action have been put forwardand people need to decide what action they want totake, if any. But it’s not a collective decision, just apersonal one – “where do I want to put my energy?what do I feel will be most effective.”

There’s a strange dynamic that can emerge ingroups using consensus whereby they start tobelieve that full group sign-off is needed foreverything. So when an affinity group states thatthey have an idea for action that they are planningto take forwards, and invites others to join in, therecan be a response along the lines of “but we haven’tagreed we’re doing that particular action yet.” Theaction hasn’t been ‘authorised’ by the group.

Secondly, and more seriously: when a group isn’twilling or able to grow. Consensus is anaspirational process. We talk in terms of equality,challenging oppression, including the margins of agroup, building the best possible proposal for thegroup, and more. Visionary stuff. How manygroups are genuinely capable of doing that all ofthe time? So we’re constantly working towardsconsensus. And if we ever get there? Well thenthere’s a particularly controversial decision to bemade, or we’re having an off day, or we have newmembers that have changed the dynamic of thegroup, and momentarily we’re a step back, strivingfor consensus all over again. If the group isn'tequipped for that journey they might want toreconsider using consensus.

Many groups struggle to enact the values ofconsensus. Their process is full of competition, lacksempathy, is distrustful and intolerant. This cycle isvicious not virtuous and distrust deepens,intolerance intensifies. Before long you don’t somuch have the conditions for consensus as fordysfunction.

Why is this different to Starhawk's “no groupmind”? Because in many such groups there’s plentyof potential for group mind – the shared values, ashared political analysis, shared aims or tactics arethere, and indeed that's often what brought thegroup together. But the group is focused, mentallyand emotionally, on difference and the differenceoverwhelms the similarities. This is usually reflectedin the process, which is paralysed by a large numberof blocks.

The basic premise of consensus in large groups ismoving between small group (sub-group) discussion,at which level high quality, inclusive andparticipatory conversation can be held, to plenarydiscussion in which ideas can be aired and the finaldecisions taken. In most cases there will need to beseveral rounds of conversation. Within a largergroup communication needs to be more conscious.Any confusion or miscommunication is amplified inlarger groups.

This kind of process still needs to have a foundationof that state of mind. Care needs to be taken to helpsupport and cultivate that, especially if a highproportion of those involved are new to consensus.


Formal consensus in larger groups?

One question commonlyasked about consensus iswhether it's appropriatefor larger groups ofpeople. The assumptionseems to be that it'ssimply not possible. Theshort answer is that it isentirely possible to doconsensus in large groups.It does need the samestate of mind to be inplace to work well andarguably that may beharder the larger thegroup, but there are plentyof examples of it workingwith groups and communities of up to 10,000people. We've already mentioned the Californiantown of Casper and the Christiania district ofCopenhagen as examples of bigger communitiesusing consensus.

There are some specific models that have beendeveloped for large group consensus. Foremostamongst them is the Spokescouncils, used by someparts of the protest movement to co-ordinate itsactions.

The spokescouncil was popularised by theMovement for a New Society as a process forreaching consensus during the 1977 occupation ofthe proposed site of the Seabrook nuclear powerstation in the USA. The occupation involved over2000 people. Spokescouncils were also used to co-ordinate action to shut down the World TradeOrganisation during the 'Battle of Seattle' in 1999which involved 10,000. But like all models theysimply formalise the relationships involved incoming to a decision.

Spokescouncil meeting at Murray Bergtraum High School where 15 operational working groupswere represented as part of the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, 2011.

Photo: (CC) Brennan Cavanaugho

A very brief history of consensusFormal consensus is often cited as starting in the1970s, and is connected to feminist groups that foundtraditional organising very patriarchal andhierarchical. The feminist movement sought tomaintain the practice of participatory democracywhen other groups were abandoning it as theybecame more mainstream. The Movement for a NewSociety, a radical Philadelphia based network,popularised consensus in the 70s and 80s1.

There are many historical groups, peoples, andcommunities who have demonstrated values ofcommunity and participation that are echoed inmodern consensus. They include indigenous culturessuch as the Aymara of the Bolivian Altiplano, theSan bushmen of the Sahara, and the Haudenosauneefirst nations people of modern day USA.

A number of religious denominations such asQuakers and Anabaptists also chose decision-makingprocesses that had, or have, similar values toconsensus. They tended to use unanimous decision-making rather than consensual decision-making, buttheir values and processes have provided muchinspiration for formal consensus.

Other notable examples of consensus-like processesand values include: the Hanseatic League, a 13th to17th century northern European trading alliance; theDutch Polder Model, a three-way collaborationbetween state, employers organisations and tradeunions designed to keep industrial relations workingeffectively; and Sociocracy, another process thatrelies on full consideration of everyone's views andunanimous consent for decision-making. often usedin commerce as well as in the non-profit sector.


There is evidence that pirate ships worked accordingto shared common values and were far moredemocratic than our modern stereotype credits.Decisions were taken in favour of the good of thewhole crew, and any leadership positions, includingthat of captain, were held only with a mandate fromthe crew.

Adapted from the Rhizome Guide to a History ofConsensus, available athttp://www.rhizome.coop/resources

Alternatives to formal consensus?There are other approaches to reaching somethingakin to consensus. Some of these fall back on thedefinition of consensus we touched on in theintroduction to this guide – a general groundswell ofsupport for an idea. The Resources section of thisguide will signpost you to more information.

• One of the most rigorous is Consensus-orienteddecision-making (CODM), which takes a groupthrough a process very similar to the flow we'veoutlines. That process is designed to support thegroup to deeply explore an issue with an openmind and with mutual respect. The main differencewith formal consensus is that the CODM processculminates in the decision rule of the groups choice– in other words they may choose to make thedecision by unanimity, by a vote, by getting theboss to decide or whatever. It relies on the rigour ofthe process to have deeply influenced everyparticipant, so that whatever way the groupformally take the decision the result is much moreco-operative. It's a good alternative fororganisations with a difficult decision to make butconstitutional or cultural restraints to allowingeveryone access to the final decision.www.consensusbook.com/index.html

• Crowd Wise is a consensus voting approach thatallows groups to co-develop and prioritise a seriesof options around a contentious issue, eventuallymoving towards one option that has thewidespread support of the group. This final optionoften gathers widespread support by fusingtogether important elements of several of the otheroptions originally under discussion. Whilst notrelying on full consent,

Crowd Wise has the advantage of working well inenvironments where formal consensus would nothave been seen as appropriate. It's been used infootball clubs and hierarchical organisations. It alsoworks well for large groups and organisations.www.neweconomics.org/projects/crowd-wise

• Dotmocracy is another consensus voting systemthat relies less on spoken debate and discussion. It'sa participatory process that allows all ideas to haveequal consideration, and for the results to becommunicated visually rather than in spoken form.Participants display ideas on 'dotmocracy sheets'which are then displayed around the room forpeople to read, comment on, and finally vote on.It's a simple process whilst simultaneously being amore sophisticated approach to the 'dot voting'techniques some groups use to prioritise ideas. It'sbeen used by local government, communityorganisations, in schools and for participatorybudgeting, amongst other. www.dotmocracy.org/

• Sociocracy is a consent-based decision makingstructure that has been applied in commercialsettings as well as in non-profit and public sectororganisations. Decisions are deemed to have beentaken when there are no paramount objections.Sociocracy can be used in hierarchicalorganisations through a model of circularorganising. Each level of the hierarchy has a semi-autonomous circle mandated to make decisions onits own area of work, and to decide about its owndevelopment. Each circle is double linked with theone directly above it in the chain. One link is arepresentative tasked to voice his or her circle'sinterests to the next higher circle. The other link ischosen by the next higher circle to represent thewider organisation to their own circle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy

• Consensus building draws heavily on the valuesof consensus. It's any facilitated and participatoryprocess that aims for unanimous consent amongststakeholders, but ultimately settles foroverwhelming support for a proposal having heardand respectfully listened to all views. The final testis “can we live with this proposal?”.www.consensusdecisionmaking.org/Articles/A%20Short%20Guide%20to%20Consensus.html


Rhizome is a co-operative of experienced facilitators, trainers and mediators. We work with co-ops, and campaigning and community groups across the UK, and with those national organisations that support activism and participation in all its forms.

This briefing is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 England and Wales license - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/. Modify it to your needs, but credit www.rhizome.coop in your revised version, and keep it share-alike.

Glossary of consensus terms

Block: The power, that every participant shares inconsensus, to prevent a proposal going through andbecoming a decision. Different groups have differentthresholds for when a block can be used. Someorganisations phrase it as a fundamental objection, butleave it open for that to be a personal objection. Weargue that it is used to prevent a group from taking adecision that is counter to its stated core aims andethos rather than for any personal reasons – in otherwords it's a Principled Objection.

Consensus: In this context consensus is shorthand forformal consensus decision making, a process by whicha group agrees by reaching full consent. The processallows for differing ways to dissent from a proposal,including the stand aside and block.

Consent: Consent differs from agreement. You canconsent to an idea that you disagree with on somelevel. As such consensus differs from unanimity,although it is possible to reach a unanimous decisionthrough consensus.

Facilitation: The role of making the decision-makingprocess easier for a group through interventions suchas: preparing an effective agenda, creating a meetingenvironment that supports people to contributeequally, keeping an eye on time, calling for breaks andrefreshments at appropriate moments, ensuringaccurate notes are taken, recording decisions, andchallenging poor group dynamics.

The facilitator is the person with responsibility for co-ordinating this, although they don't necessarily do allof these functions themselves.

Friendly Amendment: Any amendment or addition to aproposal that improves it and makes it morerepresentative of the energy, excitement and concernsof a group.

Major Objection: See block.

Principled Objection: See block.

Proposal: A suggested way forwards for action,normally synthesised out of the best elements of all ofthe ideas discussed.

Stand aside: To consent but not agree. In other words tostep back from participating in the implementation of adecision because of some level of disagreement with it,whilst simultaneously consenting to the group takingthat course of action.

Spokescouncil: A process for large group consensusdecision-making in which sub-groups sends a delegate(or spoke) to a meeting. The spokes represent theviews of their group and reach consensus on a wayforward that works for all the constituent parts. Theremay be some consultation between spoke and sub-group as part of this process.

Synthesis: a pulling together of the best elements from adiscussion into a proposal.

Unanimity: the agreement of all participants involved ina decision.

Veto: see block.

Resources

Tree Bressen’s excellent and varied consensusresources. www.treegroup.info/topics/#CDM

Autumn Brown’s consensus resources, including aworld map of consensus and a useful summary ofdifferent consensus models.http://iambrown.mayfirst.org/node/4

Tim Hartnett's Consensus-Orientated Decision-Making. www.consensusbook.com/

Seeds for Change consensus briefing which focuseson consensus in grassroots activist circles,including use of spokescouncils for large groups.www.seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consensus

www.consensus.net – a website dedicated to FormalConsensus, a specific form of formal consensus.

Consensus Decision-making – a virtual learningcentre for people interested in making decisions byconsensus which includes articles on consensusbuilding in a public sector business setting, videos,and more. www.consensusdecisionmaking.org/

consensus decision-making - rhizome

Documents