How To Use a Consensus Process To Make Decisions

Consensus refers to a rigorous decision-making model with specific roles and vocabulary. Some groups use consensus in business meetings — figuring out the schedule, budgeting, planning, dealing with issues — for anything that doesn’t fall under a person’s artistic purview. In a healthy consensus group, people seek the wisdom of the group instead of pushing their personal agendas, and decisions are made through mutual consent. The course of action is something that everyone can consent to, not that everyone loves, or even agrees with, but that everyone can live with. A decision can go forward even when people disagree with it, if they “stand aside.”

Consensus Decision-Making Process

C.T. Lawrence Butler and Amy Rothstein, "On Conflict and Consensus," (Food Not Bombs Publishing, 1991). This is a terrific, short, readable primer on consensus. —SK Click here or on image for larger version.

Consensus Roles: Facilitator

The facilitator plays a crucial role: the facilitator’s job is to try to guide to consensus, to see what the sense of the meeting is, to offer clarification. The facilitator makes sure everyone who wishes to speak gets a turn.

The facilitator might say, “I think we should split up into small groups. I think you two should go off and work this out.”

The facilitator does not speak for his or her own interest. If the facilitator gets “hooked” into having an opinion or feeling on an issue under consideration, he or she hands over the facilitation to someone else. It’s not a position of imposing views, which is why the facilitator does not speak to an issue without handing over the facilitation.

The facilitator also:

• Balances people who talk a lot against quieter ones.
• Elicits input from quiet ones.
• Keeps the group on time and follows the agenda.
• Clarifies muddy statements.
• Identifies common threads.
• Summarizes agreements and disagreements.
• Makes sure all ideas are heard and understood.
• Tests for consensus, which means expressing what seems to be emerging from the group process.*

Role Rotation

Many groups break down the facilitator’s job and assign roles to different members. A healthy consensus group rotates roles, so that everyone gets to practice all the parts of facilitation, and so that leadership can build within the group members.

Time-Keeper, Note-Taker, Gate-Keeper

Every meeting has an agenda with time allotments for each item. A time-keeper keeps the group moving forward through the agenda and suggests alterations to the time allotments. A note-taker takes notes of every meeting’s decisions and makes sure everyone has access to the notes in whatever form the group members wish. The gate-keeper takes care of who will speak and in what order, thus freeing the facilitator for enabling, monitoring and summarizing discussion.

Empath, Devil’s Advocate, Greeter

The empath (or “emotions monitor”) monitors the emotional climate and suggests ways to deal with it. If the group gets bogged down, the empath might suggest a ten-minute break, and lead a stretching and moving game. The empath names feelings that people express nonverbally and invites them to speak, thereby clearing the air.

The devil’s advocate names the problems a proposed idea might engender. Envisioning the worst-case scenario is part of good planning. Rotating the devil’s-advocate role brings negative outcomes into the planning process without blaming anyone for mentioning them.

In a group where people tend to come in after the meeting has started, it is a good idea to have a greeter meet the latecomers outside, greet them, tell them what has transpired so far, and ask them to refrain from participating in the discussion till the next agenda item comes up.

Consensus Vocabulary: Concerns

A concern about a decision is one level of objection. If someone brings up a concern, it must be addressed before the group can move forward with an action. Often, making adjustments to a proposed decision will satisfactorily address a concern.

Blocking Concerns

If someone has a blocking concern (not all concerns are blocking concerns; a thing can still move forward if people express concerns), he can say, “I want to block this action.” And then the group must talk it out. Either the group addresses the blocking concern, or finds a second or a third or a fourth solution.

Standing Aside

Standing aside is a formal way of saying, “I don’t agree with the action we’re taking, but I realize that that’s my [issue].” Or, “I don’t agree for reasons that have more to do with me than the mission of the group.” In more contentious issues, that happens a lot, and it’s OK that not everybody agrees, so long as everyone knows who disagrees and why. The dissenting voices can be part of the notes of the meeting.

If Agreement Doesn’t Happen

If the group fails to come to an agreement, four questions lead to the next step:

• Do you need more information?
• Do you need more time to think?
• Do you need more time to talk?
• Can those who disagree stand aside?

Consensus decision-making works for groups who are willing to attend to the skills it requires — listening, summarizing, attending to and validating emotions, creatively weaving varied points of view together, and working peacefully through conflict. My experience with consensus groups is that they take less time, reach better decisions and leave members happier with each other and with their decisions than voting groups. The reason I believe in using consensus as a decision-making process is that it does not marginalize the voices of dissent or of the minority, it includes them in the process, and creatively works their ideas into decisions.

*This discussion on consensus comes from an interview with David Reiffel, (People’s Opera Company, Boston, Mass.) who spoke about his experience with Cornerstone Theater in its early days. It also draws from The Center for Conflict Resolution, "Building United Judgment, A Handbook for Consensus Decision Making" (The Center for Conflict Resolution, 1981), pp. 51-57.

This essay was adapted from Sheila Kerrigan's book, "The Performer’s Guide to the Collaborative Process" (Heinemann, 2001).

Sheila Kerrigan is a performer, director, author and teacher who works in schools, with at-risk youth and in community settings. She is based in Chapel Hill, N.C. For more thoughts on collaboration, visit her Web site: http://www.collaborativecreativity.com/.

Original CAN/API publication: September 2004