Consensus Decision Making
Consensus Decision Making is the informal meeting
procedure most often used in social movements and action groups
where the participants are not affected by irreconcilable divisions,
and endeavour to make decisions which enjoy the support of
everyone present.
Consensus Decision Making contrasts with the formal Standing
Orders common in trade unions, political parties and business
organisations where conflicting interests or ideology make
consensus decision-making impossible.
The principal characteristic of Consensus Decision-making is
that a decision can only be made by the unanimous agreement of
everyone present. Usually, organisations using CDM allow for
majority decisions in which, for example, up to two people may
indicate their dissent from the decision, and the decision still be
deemed to have been made by consensus.
CDM usually involves the selection of the Chair (or
Facilitator) at the start of the meeting, and the first item
discussed will be the Agenda. As the meeting moves through the
agenda people indicate their wish to speak and are heard by turns.
Each new item is taken only as consensus is reached on the
previous decision. The Agenda may be varied by consensus in the
same way. CDM usually places strict rules on the time allowed for
speakers, the number of times anyone may speak in debate, and on
gender balance. However, in order to achieve consensus, it is
frequently necessary to allow someone to speak more often.
CDM relies on developing the skill of meeting facilitators and
participants in using the techniques of CDM, rather than in the
enforcement of an agreed set of rules and procedures, as is the case
where Standing Orders are used.
The main concepts of Consensus Decision Making are (1) Group
Genesis and (2) Roles. These concepts are dealt with in more detail
under Group Dynamics.
(1) Group Genesis
When a group of people come together to, for example, build a
campaign against a particular government action or build an
interest-group, they will necessarily go through a series of stages
of development. Awareness of these stages of development and the
different kinds of organisational problems and possibilities that go
with each stage, is essential. These stages are repeated in
miniature every time a new meeting begins or even when a new
person joins the group.
In the first stages of group development, people
do not know each other, there are no agreed
norms of conduct, and even the aim of the
group is unclear. When a new decision is
posed, the same applies: it is not clear what
reasons may lie behind the proposal or what its
implications may be. In this first stage, the
main issues are building mutual trust,
encouraging openness, discouraging severe
criticism, gaining commitment, coming to an
agreement on what the main issue really is and
agreeing norms of conduct. Experienced
practitioners of Consensus Decision-Making
will use specific techniques to foster mutual
trust and commitment at this stage.
Introductions at the beginning of every meeting
is a technique appropriate to achieving the aims
of the first stage of a group or meeting. Groups
may also hold a special Welcome Meeting to
induct newcomers to a group which is already
well-established. Discussing and agreeing the
agenda at the beginning of the meeting is
another technique which fosters mutual trust
and agreement.
In the second stage of group development, if
the group has been successful in negotiating
norms of conduct and gaining mutual respect
among the participants, it is necessary to
actively encourage conflict and disagreement,
to disclose all the hidden agendas, conflicting
interests, power-plays and different
ideological takes on the situation. Such conflict
would be suicidal if embarked upon too soon,
but if these differences are not brought out,
they will simmer under the surface and
undermine future activity. Brain storming is a
useful process for making the transition from
the first to the second stage; this is where
participants are encouraged to say out loud
basically anything that comes into their heads,
but to absolutely withhold from criticising
others. The plethora of conflicting ideas that is
brought out in this stage, including both sound
ideas and total nonsense, creates a good
environment for examining the conflicting
ideas and sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Inviting people to put whatever they want on to
the agenda is helpful, too. When the meeting
comes to the item, they might throw it out, but
it is important to allow this to be discussed and
decided, rather than simply ruling something
out of order and not allowing it onto the
agenda. In this stage, participants need to bring
forward proposals and have them discussed and
either adopted or discarded, so the meeting can
make decisions about what it is for and what it
is against.
In the third stage, it is necessary to both heal
the wounds of the stage of conflict and to draw
together the various things on which the group
has found agreement and to try to achieve
bonding and commitment around the agreed
proposals. This should include attempts to ironout the rough edges of proposals, to merge
together different proposals that dont fit
together very well. This stage should involve
the use of sub-groups and working groups
which do the detailed work and resolve
conflicts, and bring them back to the whole
group for adoption, building up a program of
united action.
In the fourth stage, having built mutual trust,
established norms of conduct, agreed on aims
and basic principles and a program of action,
the group must more and more go over the
practical activity, outreach, testing out its
agreed ideas and discussing the results of what
they do, correcting errors, concretising
proposals that were not properly thought
through and so on. Discussions at this stage
need to be action-oriented and should not have
to go back to basic principles, as these should
have been sorted out in the earlier stages.
Dividing up practical work into projects that
can be taken on by smaller groups reporting
back to the whole group is common at this
stage.
The common purpose and commitment which is the
foundation of Consensus Decision-Making cannot be taken
for granted by simply insisting upon unanimous decisions:
it has to be built and maintained; otherwise, insistence on
unanimity can only lead to the fostering of differences under
the surface and eventual split.
(2) Roles
Every member of a consensus decision-making meeting or
group must have a role, and group members must ensure that
this is so. Roles can be anything from facilitating, making
contact with other groups*, doing research*, checking
whether previous decisions are being carried out*, timekeeping*, giving reports or making and formulating
proposals for action to active listening, keeping minutes,
guarding the door, introducing newcomers, asking the
difficult questions or pointing out potential problems*,
putting proposals into simple language, fostering group
feeling*, keeping the books, and so on and so on. The
greater the plethora of roles a group is able to foster among
its participants and the greater the fluidity with which
people are able to adopt and change roles the more
fruitful and productive will be the discussions and the
greater the commitment of group members to the outcome.
It is important to both actively seek out people to play
essential roles, and to give people recognition for their role.
Rotating roles is also important, to prevent the build-up of
hierarchical relations of the exclusion of people from
important roles, but it is more important that people should
be able to find appropriate roles and that there should be
many such roles. Some roles are quite essential: every group
or discussion must have someone able to carry out the roles
indicated with an asterisk (*) above.
One of the important aspects of consensus decisionmaking is the active countering of various negative
phenomena which arise from social problems and
differences having their origin in society at large. Thus,
CDM involves specific techniques to counteract sexism and
other habitual tendencies towards domination or exclusion.
Language problems and disabilities, family responsibilities
and so on also impose stresses on organisations which CDM
obliges organisations to take specific counter-measures
against. These measures include constraints on speakingorder in meetings, the choice of venues and meeting-times
and so on, the ensure people are not excluded.
