A Compilation on Consensus

Jeanette Stanfield was kind enough to pull together here a number of colleagues' comments about the nature of consensus and experiences with our use of it in the Order. Feel free to add additional thoughts.

---

Reading these interesting and many-faceted contributions, I wished for more indication re where each began and ended. So I put in the lines between each one. I also added Paul Schrijinen's name to his entry. No other changes were made. Janice Ulangca

---

A working Paper

Introduction

This debriefing about consensus began on the OE and Colleague dialogue list serves at wedgeblade.net. We decided to put it on the Repository where it is accessible and where people can continue to add to it .

Building consensus and operating out of consensus have been at the heart of our action research work for the last forty years. Our facilitation methods being used in organizations and communities around the world have been build on the premise that authentic enduring decisions are based on consensus. Millions of people from all sectors of society and from many countries around the globe have experienced and used these consensus building methods which we sometimes call ToP, Technology of Participation. It seems appropriate at this time when the planet is crying out for reconciling approaches that we begin to share what we are learning about the decision making process called consensus.

As you look at this debrief, we start with some definitions of consensus itself. Then we move to complexities. It will quickly become clear that consensus is not easy. There are many factors at play. There is an ongoing learning curve for facilitators and participants that will never cease. In the midst of those complexities there are also some keys to bringing about consensus. We invite your participation in adding your experiences, stories, and insights about consensus.

Some of the examples in this debrief come directly from the early work of the Order Ecumenical in attempting consensus within community life. Sometimes the language may be strange. Please ask and we will try to clarify what we mean.

Our learnings have come out of many “hard knocks”. There is both passion and pain involved in our sharing of this decision making approach. We ask for respectful dialogue and reflection.

Jeanette Stanfield at rbstanfi@bigpond.net.au

TITLES: SEEKING CONSENSUS AROUND THE GLOBE.

Ellen Howie-- Debrief on 40 + years of experience with building consensus

---

Decision making and the Consensus process

I looked up the word "decision" in the dictionary this morning. It comes from the same root as Incision, and scissors -- means to cut. I was reminded that decisions and decision making is, in a sense, a savage business -- kind of like the arrows from Bultman or Kazantzakis imagery. Insights and reflections like Frank's, approaches like Nancy's. consensus, voting are all trying to give form to a very serious process -- in a way that gets, hopefully, a better decision, and does less injury along the way than whatever it replaces . . Jim Wiegel

---

1. Christine and I have reflected at times about our decision making as a couple. It seems that the times have been rare that we actually have come jointly to a decision. The big decisions about things like children, their schools, where to live, what we do, have mostly been a decision by one of us. The other was then invited to support that decision. The decisions worked if they were based on our con-sensus, our shared mind and heart.

2. The first step in consensus building seems to be the building of a shared understanding of relevant information. That is hard given the complexity of sharing information fully and the difficulty of truly 'getting' what another person says or means. So often decision making or consensus building is categorised as a political rather than a cognitive process

3. Effective decision making requires clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the people involved in the decision making process. In the Order we left this to implicit understanding of gifts, talents and commitments. The implicitness avoided awkward feedback, but didn't prevent a lot of people feeling dis-enfranchised.

4. I have found it useful to separate three phases in the decision making process: 1. the divergent phase, 2. the convergent phases, 3. the naming the decision phase. In the first phase one listens to the widest possible group, the democratic dynamic. In the second phase a recommendation is then developed by the experts, the oligopoly dynamic. The leader then has the job to make the decision which reflects the broadest set of perspective, the expert view and the bigger picture, which is represented or 'defended' by the (symbolic) leader. The Bay of Pigs White House decision making seems to have followed this process.

5. Written in the constitution of a few (Catholic) European countries is the procedure that when a bench of judges sits, the first one to speak is the youngest, or the one with the least experience. Then the others chip in, and finally the President of the bench. This idea was first introduced in the Rule of Benedict in the 6th century. It seems to reflect the 3 phases mentioned in point 4. The Dutch took this notion out of their constitution. A sad mistake. The Spanish still have it, as was pointed out to me by a Spanish judge who stayed with our family to learn English a few years ago. Does anyone know if the American Supreme Court uses this process in their decision making?

So three keys 1. Structure the process as three steps 2. See the first step as primarily a cognitive process, a process of shared learning, data gathering. The second and third phase are primarily political in the best sense of that word. 3. Decision making and consensus building require role clarity of those involved in any part of the 3 steps. Paul Schrijinen

---

Consensus Definitions: I've used this in my facilitation classes for quite a few years; Gary Forbes and I created the definition. The other information I gathered over the years.

“Consensus is that everyone has participated in, understands, and is committed to supporting the group decision.”

A lasting agreement has 3 components: 1. Content Satisfaction “I understand the decision; I can support the group decision.” This is more powerful than the usual “I can live with the decision”. It means that given the time we have to discuss and the need to make a decision by a certain time/date, this is the best decision we can make now as a group. As in a wedding when people are asked to 'speak now or forever hold their peace'. It is also a commitment not to downgrade the decision after the meeting. 2. Procedural Satisfaction: “I participated in the process.” I offered up my ideas and people listened to me; facilitation processes were utilized to maximize participation. 3. Psychological Satisfaction: “I felt I was treated with respect during the process.” No one put me down; the facilitator protected me so that my ideas and explanation of my ideas were heard and considered seriously.

I've used this in my facilitation classes for quite a few years; Gary Forbes and I created the definition. The other information I gathered over the years Cynthia Vance

---

Cynthia, I’m glad you put this out to the list. I considered doing so but was busy pushing, pulling, lifting and holding Tuecke back from doing the same. I hoped you or Sunny or someone would come forth. There’s a group of us that have been using these definitions and comments in our training, too. Pat Tuecke

---

COMPLEXITIES

Consensus - Buy-in – Resistance

I just got Rick Maurer's latest book "Why don't you want what I want?"*. * "Why don't you want what I want?" by Rick Maurer ISBN 1-885167-56-3 Bard Press, February 2002 In chapter 1 Rick presents various reactions to ideas. Quoting from page 26: "Reaction. You can't take support for granted. Just because you love your own idea doesn't guarantee that others will. The fact is, people may hate the idea. The reaction lens helps us see how people are responding. We need to know just how receptive they are likely to be.

There are five major reactions you could get when you present your idea to someone else: 1) CHAMPION. The champion is so excited about your idea that he or she is willing to do whatever it takes to ensure the ideas gets implemented in a way that gets results. The champion might offer to lead, go to bat for you with someone else, or protect your time so you can keep this idea a top priority. 2) SUPPORT. The supporter likes your idea and is quite willing to help you whenever you ask. He won't take a leadership role but will be glad to assist if asked. 3) GO ALONG. This person will go along with your idea. She won't take any initiative, but she won't make waves either. Don't expect someone at this stage to volunteer for a task force, commit resources, or do anything to further the cause. She will simply go along. 4) DRAG FEET. This person doesn't like the idea. Perhaps he doesn't understand it fully, so for now he is uncomfortable with your idea. Or perhaps he grasps what you are suggesting but simply doesn't like it. If you ask him to do something, he will probably complain or find ways to proceed by exerting only minimal effort. Or as a client once described it, he will user malicious compliance. 5) ACTIVELY OPPOSE. This person really truly doesn't like your idea and will do whatever he or she can to make sure your idea never succeeds."

I think this is a good continuum of 'buy-in' or 'resistance' depending on which way you read the list. I would propose that each participant in a group falls somewhere within this continuum. Knowing where each of the stakeholders are along this continuum would be an important strategy step in getting 'buy in' or at least minimizing 'resistance'. As a facilitator, with the goal of group communications, the understanding of these levels would help in surfacing the "resistance" and getting the "buy-in". All the best David*Vukovic Houston Texas

---

Consensus levels – buy-in Maybe even replace "buy in" with a series of words that denote increasingly committed states and are each clearly defined. (Maybe 'grudging acceptance,' 'don't care one way or the other,' 'willing to go along,' 'willing to help out a little,' 'will get behind,' 'would give up nights and weekends for,' 'would give my life to.' Something like that.) Then not every effort would have to have "huge, all-inclusive meetings just for the sake of "buy-in"." Ned Ruete (Consensus - Buy-in – Resistance contributed by Pat Tuecke)

---

Tension of Tradition and Participation

The following email of mine, from July, links in with the discussion about consensus. It had to do with the creative tension between (1) the long-term sensibility/tradition/etc of a movement/organisation, and the means of maintaining that, and (2) the participation of all, including new people who may have "off the wall" insights/contributions/criticisms/suggestions.

My very first experience of consensus-making was in Demonstration Platoon of the Adelaide University Regiment in the years 1965-68. (The equivalent of ROTC - for those with as-yet-ill-formed views about draft-dodging or conscious objection, and/or did just not want to die in Vietnam.) At the yearly camp, when our platoon was required to demonstrate an ambush or some other activity, our platoon commander, a young second lieutenant and honours architecture student, would gather us all around a map with the outline of our brief. Then suggestions would be called for.

New, naive, unconditioned members would offer "off the wall" ideas which were often taken up. More experienced members would offer suggestions based on experience. One of the two sergeants would offer a tentative overview. Discussion would continue. Finally our leader would say "Looks like we're going to do ......... Any comments or questions?"

It helped that we were close to the same age and most of us were students. It helped that we were all involved. It helped that our platoon commander did not stand on ceremony when we were all in it together. The esprit de corps was amazing, as it combined tradition and partcipation.

> A former Baptist minister, now social worker, told me a few years back how he had ben asked to write the constitution for a new Baptist congregation in his suburb. He asked lots of people for what they wanted in it and so on. They didn't quite understand why he asked questions about how many months notice would be needed to have a vote to change the constitution.
>
> But he was able to write in "two months (or maybe it was more) months notice" was required for discussion before any motion to change the constitution was to be put to the vote of a meeting of the congregation. A few years later a fundamentalist sub-group tried to take over the congregation by a swift change in the constitution - theological and procedural wordings would be changed. People at last were grateful for George's wisdom - he was as gentle as a lamb, but as wily as a servant. He showed the congregation that they were living in the real world.
>
> In earlier days of the Order of the Ecumenical Institute, the Order:Ecumenical, the Ecumenical Institute, and the Institute of Cultural
> Affairs there was a lot of cultural pressure and tradition that just kept things going by consensus (albeit flawed in process at times). Despite there being a triangle in the Social Process about "Bureaucratic Systems", "bureaucracy" became a "boo word". Never-the-less there was a small amount of formal organisational legalism that kept us in relationship with "community and polis".
>
> When were there events, incidents, periods of time when the smallness of that formal organisational legalism (I may have the wrong word here) became a real problem? I do recall that we had an adolescent confidence that we would "live forever" (as in the title song from the musical "Fame") and could "do anything", and that legalities were for "the world" and not for us.
>
> Those of you who have read a lot of Niebuhr and so on - what have they to say about this? I know we used Bonhoeffer to say that a person, group, etc makes decisions with due consideration of duties, etc - but my sense was that "due consideration" was often swept aside in that adolescent confidence, as we let "the indicative" tell us what to do. My unformed, but intuitive, question back then was "How do you decide, and who decides, what "the indicative" is?" And within what framework - maybe history long,
> cosmos wide, and soul deep?
>
> It's like a Lutheran pastor of my acquaintance telling his flock, and the management committee of the ecumenical centre we once sat on, that "We should not be pushing our own agendas, but be asking what God wants us to do". I only wish I had had the courage (I was new on the scene) to ask "What's the process for asking God?"
>
> So: at one pole we have very strong, tight and limiting procedures, like law that is never up for interpretation or discussion, unlike that on Boston Legal or whatever.
>
> At the other pole we have very open "we'll decide it for ourselves" that does not consider the "commonweal".
>
> Maybe my polarity is flawed. Comments are welcome.
>
> 2)
> "The Polity of the Order:Ecumenical" (c 1974) was out of date as soon as it was written. The collators of that document said so in their introduction - like religious doctrine, it was a snapshot of theory and practice at that time. But by gathering the threads together from our practice, and many different writings, papers and documents the collators were able to develop a very useful document. I used many of its principles in the late 70s and early 80s when writing about educational administration.
>
> One section referred to "the Permanent House Church" as a group of guardians of the tradition. was this ever spelled out in detail, anywhere? Or discussed and never noted, anywhere?
>
> My reflection at the time of my ed admin writings was that this "Permanent House Church" functioned to provide a creative tension with our participative processes. No sub-group could insert their agenda too easily into the participative decision-making and bend the developing consensus. Like "the Regulatory" at a summer research gathering, it could monitor the process.
>
> So: another polarity. "the Permanent House Church" at one end, participative processes at the other.
>
> 3)
> I remember one summer gathering where a workshop leader was just ignoring participant contributions that didn't fit the outcome he wanted. He had already decided the outcome. A member of the Global Panchayat leant over and pointed this out to me. I replied "Yes, there seems to be a bit of "getting people to fit a predetermined agenda" going on here". Was that participative process or something else?
>
> I remember a workshop leader at a Community Meeting in a suburb of Adelaide, in the late 70s, who tied to steer the participants. The problem was that he was the electorate secretary to the local Labor Party member, and in later years would be the MP for that seat, and then go on to hold several ministerial positions and then premier of South Australia. He now works in SE Asia for a prominent NGO.
>
> To those of you with backgrounds in political philosophy and history. Are these examples of the USSR use of "soviets"? Do they fit Stalinist thinking? "No matter what the cost" thinking? It's certainly not the sort of thing that we'd teach these days in ToP training - the various kinds of questions and frameworks we use certainly put a check on such actions.
>
> 4)
> I've heard "the Panchayat principle" used as a phrase over the years. Again it seems to have been used when some "executive action" seems to be taken, or the influence of some "executive" is brought to bear.
>
> Sometimes it seems to have been used over against any around-the-table thrashing out of issues, sometimes it seems to have been used in a behind-the-scenes fashion.
>
> These days, when most people (at least in the "developed" world) have email, recommendations can be made by a council, group, retrea, or team, and then be discussed on email within a suitable time frame. Remember when Pope Paul VI changed the rules for papal elections? The new rules gave time for members of the conclave to gather from around the whole world (not just Europe) in an appropriate and possible time. The email assists with the same principle.
>
> John Cock is reported to have said (and I paraphrase) some years ago at a gathering "Around this table we've all been here long enough not to be pulling the wool over each others eyes, or to have it pulled over our own". Apologies, John, I've quoted this many times over the years.
>
> So: any comments on "the Panchayat principle" over against participative processes?
>
> 5)
> Finally. The above are similar and yet different polarities. How do they fit with "the ends" and "the means"? "The ends justifiy the means"? "Anything for the sake of the mission"? Our use of "The Philosophy of Revolution" by Jean-Paul Sartre. I remember reading books on social and organisational change mechanisms (in medicine, in agriculture, in education, etc) in the late 60s that moved far beyond Sartre's processes.
>
> Were other models considered apart from Sartre back in the 60s/70s? I recognise that in the heady 60s/early 70s "revolutionary rhetoric" was par for the course. In fact, it's part of required reading now, ALONGSIDE other models, in any decent organisational change study. I suspect that we hung on to this rhetoric and its processes for too long - - eventually we recognised that life includes these processes in more complex ways than we used them back when.
>
Frank Bremner

---

Process Obstacles

As I understand it, consensus was developed with the idea that everyone's voice could be heard and even one person could stop a decision from being made. As practiced in the order when I was there, that poor dissenting voice was drowned out by “Don't block the consensus.”

Tom Hayden once commented on his experience of consensus in the civil rights days. What he found was that only the charismatic leaders had the power to name the consensus. Everyone waited until one of the charismatic leaders spoke and then people followed and the dissenters were crushed. Not all of you experienced it this way in the Oder, but I did. No one really wanted to listen to dissenting views and those that followed convention had the most power to name the “consensus.”

At least in a vote, the minority's objection goes on record. Yet, as John Montgomery indicates those in the majority can rule and believe that a plurality of votes is a mandate from Heaven. In the Southern Baptist Church conservative churches packed the house and stole a denomination, so yes the majority can tyrannize a minority in democracy. Further in the present administration we have seen a disregard of the minority when the President's party exercised majority power in Cogress (even now with the ability to filibuster).

The thing is that bodies do have to make decisions and there are disagreements. It doesn't follow that if people reason together they will eventually come to a reasoned consensus. This is theoretically possible in like-minded groups, but as indicated in my Order experience what happens is that a ruling conventionalism or charismatic leader dominates. I have heard that Quakers make this work but by having unbelievably long meetings sometimes. Is it really the goal of decision-making that everyone come to agreement?

I appreciated Nancy's practical example in a group where some decision had to be made. There are many approaches and the goal after all is free expression and exchange of ideas with a goal of making the best decision. Different methods will work in different situations.

As I indicated in my earlier e-mail, on a practical level most decisions in small bodies are made by consensus. There are times, however, when there are genuine disagreements . . . like whether or not to build the new sanctuary . . . for which there may be no genuinely consensual right answer. Without thinking this through further at this time, I think then democracy is good because it allows a decision to be made without papering over the disagreement. Democracy is not good, however when there is not a process that allows to speak, and equally or more important a process that enables people to listen in genuine dialogue. This is what we all strive for.

I really cannot imagine how “consensus is a step forward for the World Council of Churches. Have these people really reached consensus on such issues as gay right? Are these people really content to let one single delegate block a decision, or will they rise up and say “Don't block the consensus!”

Most small groups effectively do work by consensus. Yet, consensus is something I cannot back as a policy for virtually any group. It too easily becomes a form of tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Herman Greene

---

Herman's thoughts have triggered some of my own.

" but as indicated in my Order experience what happens is that a ruling conventionalism or charismatic leader dominates. "

Not only that, but they were groups in the Order that we deemed second class citizens. These people may have varied from place to place depending on the priorship. Teenagers, in my experience, were often regarded as foot soldiers for the Order, but very rarely were they given a voice in anything UNLESS that voice mimicked the adult "consensus". One of the reasons I left the Order was because many in the Order said one principle or value like "this decision is by consensus" and the reality was Very Different.

"I have heard that Quakers make this work but by having unbelievably long meetings sometimes. Is it really the goal of decision-making that everyone come to agreement?"

Yes, sometimes it is very wise to have the goal to be everyone coming to agreement. This does not always mean that a win/win solution can be found, but it does honor the process of emotional release that helps communities to grow together and not apart. The Hopi (and other native tribes) might also sit in council for incredibly long periods to make a decision. In this tradition, part of the reason for this was to let the voices of the next seven generations into the conversation. Each person had a commitment to those seven generations, and that created another set of diverse perspectives to listen to, to digest, and with which to come to balance. Both internally with each individual, and with the group as a whole. And, there were roles to be played out too. Like the Contrary Clown/Devil's advocate, for one example. Understanding the medicine wheel of life helped these tribes to hold values of balance even when no human in the room was speaking from that perspective.

" Different methods will work in different situations."

Absolutely.

"when there are genuine disagreements . . . like whether or not to build the new sanctuary . . . for which there may be no genuinely consensual right answer. ..... when there is not a process that allows to speak, and equally or more important a process that enables people to listen in genuine dialogue. This is what we all strive for."

Consensus for me is about listening and dialogue. And it is about going outside of the box to create new win/win solutions.

„Don‚t block the consensus!‰

People who go around saying "don't block the consensus " don't know what consensus is and don't understand the commitment it takes to build consensus.

Thank you all for listening, and thank you, Herman, for sparking my brain this fine Sunday morning.

Walk in Beauty, Jon Mark Elizondo

---

Thanks, Jon. Quakers don't try to use consensus, rather to "discern God's will" in the situation. (You want to talk about what can be a slow process! There is an excellent book by a Jesuit who observed the process called, naturally, Beyond Consensus. I won't try to explain the process beyond how he does. It is based on utter respect for that of God within each participant-- and still tries us regular humans!

Mary Hampton

---

My own experience with consensus is: 1) meetings going so late that only those with enough endurance to last out to the end were the ones who made the final decisions; And 2) being told to “shut up” by my colleagues at the Peru HDP consult when I raised questions about the way the village people were being handled in the so-called decision-making process. Del Morrill

---

Large groups do pose problems – we are less than 200 days away from the United Methodist General conference. There are several wedge issues at stake – one of the most heated, of course, is the inclusion of the GLBT persons in our generally “big tent” denomination. Can we reconcile with those sons and daughters of our church who we have treated so badly over the years? Can we become a welcoming community inviting others to join us in mission, thus making our slogan, Open Hearts, Minds and Doors a reality? I don’t expect much change this time around, but I surely would like to see the reconsideration of the proposed wording that was defeated by a 3 to 2 majority last conference that simply said we are deeply divided about this issue. This was hardly a mandate, but those who won have interpreted it to be and now seek to take the conversation off the table without any further discussion. My greatest fear would be that when we do remove the unfortunate language and restrictions in our Book of Discipline that dishonor God’s created diversity, then us ‘liberals” will try to turn our narrow majority into a mandate as well. These seem to be the rules of politics and public discourse these days.

In small groups, who are committed to consensus, ironically the minority can become the tyrant and the consensus process must include ways of allowing someone to “stand outside the consensus” but not block it. And if and when, the group decides to move ahead without a full consensus, it must publicly include that fact in its announcement of the “sense of the group.” John C. Montgomery

---

Diverse Individual Learning and Processing styles Due to a different brain wiring than the more outspoken, extroverted types in the Order, I often found myself left completely out of the process. When I was serious about participating in any discussions that involved decisions, it always took much effort to listen to what was being said and an even longer time to formulate my own thoughts about it. When my thoughts started to clarify to a point that I felt I could intelligently express them, the group had moved well beyond them. Expressing these thoughts when others had gone onto other issues was commonly rejected by hearing "we've already discussed that, where have you been?" After several years of frustration I reached a point where I decided if the decision was something I agreed with, I'd support it. If not, I chucked it out of my way and moved on.

Consensus decision making takes time not only because of the diverse opinions around the table but also because there are those of us who need time to think over the model, etc. in order to formulate our responses. In the fast paced life of the Order, time always seemed to too little, too late. It felt as if so many consensed decisions were plopped on us with a take it or leave it attitude.

In addition to diversity of opinions, consensus building takes time for those who think fast and talk fast to wait for people who think slower and talk less. Jim Baumbach

---

Jim,

I totally agree with you here -- and I'm one of the fast-thinking, fast-talking types. But since I left the order, most of my professional life has been one long lesson in learning to patiently allow those who operate differently than me go through their own process. I'm fortunate to have usually been in organisations where I was one of a few, or only, people that processed things quickly and I've appreciated the value of slowing down and mulling things over. . . Tracey E. Longacre

---

Jim, I can appreciate your situation. When I’m facilitating, I tell people that the reason I have them work silently by themselves to do an initial brainstorming is because some of us have a very short connection between our brain and our mouth. These are the people who can immediately respond verbally to a question with their opinion or idea. Others of us have a more convoluted connection between our brain (thoughts) and our mouth. And it takes us a bit longer to articulate our response. So taking this time to individually gather our thoughts before we start sharing and discussing them helps both types. The quick ones have time to actually consider what they say before they speak and the others actually have something to share on the first go round. Pat Tuecke

---

Reflection and questions about consensus

May I ask for a little more clarity and perhaps some education for myself from those commenting on consensus as a decisional method? What I heard was that consensus could be used by the majority to crush the minority, and that a more evolved process goes beyond consensus method. I would like to know what decision method can not be misused, and when we talk about processes that goes beyond setting around a table and explaining, if experimenting is somehow not part of achieving consensus. Just what would you call it?

My experience has been that there are no processes that cannot be misused, but some seemed rigged for the majority (Roberts Rules, simple votes), though even there some genuine decisions arise. Consensus seems more aimed toward the future, and can allow for a multiplicity of views. I have found no better way to get things on "top of the table." The hardest thing for any organization to do is to make a "real" decision. I've been impressed with both the corporate and non-profit world I've had opportunity to experience have leaned toward some form of consensus making, some more complex than another. George Holcombe

---

There seems to be a abroad consenus in this country that we should not be in Iraq and that torture and spying on US citzens without a warrant is illegal. The minority at 1600 Pennsylvaia Ave is not apart of this consenus, but it controls a majority of the votes in the House and Senate. Ehich is some kind of strange majoritization of a minority. Also when we were writng a State of the globe report for an NCO in 1979, the UN exercise a provision in its charter than allowed for a decision by consenus for the first in in its history. I do not know if they have used it since. Maybe rob Work could tell us. David Walters

---

As someone said about 4 emails back, there is no perfect decision-making process, and anything can be misused and abused. Consensus works in a "classless" group where the power is in the center of the table. A "leader," "first among equals" or anyone assuming authority and expertise can decide to use coercion and manipulation. But this is a problem only if the rest of the body allow themselves to be manipulated and coerced. True "equals" will use rational persuasion.

Many of the people I work with in my local community think consensus represents the "lowest common denominator," where you just keep boiling the pot down to something everyone can agree to. I think of it as a "synergistic" process where all the parts/contributions are folded in but the outcome resembles none of the parts. This does indeed take time. Our summer research assemblies were great consensus-building events, and the process, I believe, continued beyond the summer until the real consensus emerged after the product of the assemblies had been field tested. In fact, maybe consensus is a journey and not a destination.

It's not like consensus is some sacred process. It's a functional way to have everyone move with conviction and commitment toward some objective they all agree is desirable. The consensus-making process breaks down when people do not have a pre-articulated common objective, like a vision and mission When used effectively consensus is more than just utilitarian, and becomes part of the culture of the organization. Randy Williams

---

A memory flashes back out of these last few days of emails.

We used to say: 1. Humor is better than seriousness. 2. Yes before no 3. Phariseeism more dangerous than libertinism

It's interesting that the World Council of Churches has now introduced consensus making as its form of decision making and that the United Methodist Church in its reorganization as a global church is looking at adapting that too at the next General Conference.

Wouldn't it be a pity if we forgot what we pushed into history along with others, and if what defined us is what we choose to remember about our past and what offends us about others.

Could it be we are being challenged to learn how to use email as a significant way to push us into the future?

George Holcombe

---

Chasing rabbits is what you do when you are killing time trying to delay the calling of the consensus. Nancy Trask

---

Thanks for the reminder, George. BTW, was it you who originated the line: "When in Doubt, Intensify!"? A myth I heard at Academy 30 years ago has it, that the quote "sprouted" out from somewhere in the outbacks of Down Undah. Addi Batica

---

Examples of working with consensus successfully

As we were forming our community of Songaia, we decided that we would use consensus for decision making. However, we have the gift of having a couple of folks who hold us to hearing and honoring each individual voice in the process and the concern that Herman voiced is acknowledged. Of course, this sometimes works better than others, but we put energy into making it work. Nearly 8 years later, we have another way of processing - it is called a decision board. An individual or committee can write a proposal, send it out by email and post it on the decision board. The name of each community member is listed on the proposal followed by 3 columns: 1) I agree, 2) I need more discussion, 3) I will help fund the project. If there are folks (1 or more) who need more discussion, we set a time and gather folks to work it through. Folks who want to see the project happen might help to fund it or we request money from our abundant fund to carry out the project. There are times when folks will stand aside but not block the decision but usually we work at the proposal so that people are ready to go with it. There continue to be decisions that we need to talk through as a whole group - and so we do.

Let me give a fun example: Early on in our life together, one family wanted to have chickens. The chickens would provide us with eggs, an education about where our eggs and chicken meat came from (not the supermarket), and how it gets to our table (killing), and fertilizer for the garden. Several folks in the community were quite concerned about the noise (roosters), some did not want the smell around the community. No one really wanted the chicken coop in their "back yard. About 2 years ago, 3 folks stepped forward with a proposal - no roosters and the coop (a chicken tractor*) would be placed in the garden (not really in anyone's back yard). Well - there was still a concern about the original two issues plus a third big issue - AVIAN FLU

Fred gathered folks together for conversations and explained how the noise and smell were being dealt with - folks seemed to understand at this point. The avian flu was a tough one- but it was decided that if avian flu showed up in the USA, we would get rid of the chickens. Finally we had consensus given the explanations of how the project would be handled AND a hearty YES from the 11 children in the community.

The saga continues - we all love the chickens, the eggs AND the one rooster who came with the lot of chicks (sometimes telling their sex at birth is difficult) in the beginning. He crows at any time of day or night but he helps structure the lives of the hens in a rather creative way!

*Our chicken tractor is quite a sight. The house (8 ft X 3 ft) is made of green plastic siding with a roost and 3 nests inside. It can be moved each week since it is built on 2 riding mower wheels and has a handle on the back side. There are two portable chicken runs, one on each end of the coop which detach for moving purposes. Food and water are piped into the coop. The coop/runs are designed to fit into our garden beds. These birds have become part of our recycling program here at Songaia, they eat nearly all of our scraps from the kitchen. Yours in community and in fun, Nancy Lanphear

---

I think Nancy's way of grounding consensus is something to crow about. george.packard1

---

I have two images about "consensus" which may help in the current discussion. I too have noticed how "consensus" can silence the dissenter, or the person with a "but .....", or the person with a "po" (Edward de Bono's name for an item that wopn't fit into "yes" or "no"). I've been thinking about this through my work with high school students, using ICA/ToP methods, at school level. And then again working with high school students at state level, where sitting around talking ("blah!") was "the method" being used by those in charge.

(1) At a LENS seminar in Adelaide in 1974 or so, David Zahrt used the idea of a "map" to illustrate "consensus". This really grabbed my imagination. The "consensus" is a map of "the lay of the land".

(2) In the 80s, when working with high school students, I developed the "map of the lay of the land" to include the disagreements, the fuzzy bits that wouldn't flatten out, the edgy bits that wouldn't straighten up. In other words, the consensus could be a "map orf the may of the land" that represented the real "lay of the land". The participants then have to own that "lay of the land" as belonging to the whole group and then work with it.

The result might be something very articulate, and containing elements of paradox or natural tensions, and might emerge during the planning (or whatever) session. Or the result might be something for a team to go away and work on.

At least, with the "'lay of the land" in front of them, participants can start to see the interfaces or connections between various viewpoints - "what do we have in common?" How do these items relate to each other? Is there "A and B" rather than "A or B"?

For me, taking this approach got around the (often false and imposed) urgency of "forming a consensus now", which can lead to only the loudest voices being heard, or the status quo (also known as "the party line") being reinforced. And on one hand bringing some pre-prepared model was OK ("having a model"), and one the other hand it wasn't (it was "lobbying"). Taking the approach in (1) and (2) above honoured all participants and all contributions. Even the slightest "but ..." could hint at a breakthrough or a new insight. It's like Paul Dirac thinking (out in left field) "Why can't we have negative matter?", and laying the groundwork for the theory of anti-matter and black holes. Frank Bremner

In the business I co-owned it was very helpful to understand whose decision was it. My partner and I thought every decision should be by consensus which meant a few long blooded sessions. We finally learned to determine which decisions we really needed a consensus on and which one we said, "This is my decision, and I would like some input".

Voting with your feet:

I've also appreciated an Ojibwa practice of voting with your feet. This method has folks line up behind the candidate they are supporting. Depending on how many folk are in the running the bottom 1 or 2 drop out. Everyone then gets the opportunity to redecide who they will support and stand behind them. Slowly everyone is left standing behind one person.

Another way to do 'voting with your feet' is to pose a yes or no question and then draw a line in the room with Yes on one side, No on the other and Uncertain or Questioning in the middle. Folks vote by standing in the spot they feel answers the questions. You can then interview the people to see why they are standing in the spot they have chosen. If you need to keep shaping a consensus you can have a second voting to see if you have shifted people's thinking.

As a facilitator the other dynamic I've learned in the 'helpful pause' in the midst of a dialogue/exploration. This helpful pause may be a break or sleeping on the issue.

Jan Sanders

---

Consensus with large groups Most of this discussion has been on consensus regarding small group decisions. I would think that any pull together would need to include our large group consensus methods. I feel in this regards we were/are far ahead of some of the other methods such as Open Space and others. Specifically I would include our TM method, Consult method, LENS (especially plenary process), GRA including especially Room E dynamic, and the one that most interests me these days, our Memorial method and Priorities discernment from Order Councils. I remember long discussions and small group work on Memorials and then a consensus that it was or was not a Memorial. it was very powerful at the time for me, but I don't recall the procedure and context of just what was or was not a Memorial. I feel this method is one we should really write up for the world. Anyone remember the details of this process? Jack Gilles

---

Consensus in government institutions Governing Magazine/February 2002

ASSESSMENTS

MEETINGS OF THE MINDS By Alan Ehrenhalt

When people think about Montana, "consensus" isn't the first idea that pops into their heads. "Conflict" would be more like it. The history of Big Sky Country is filled with epic confrontations between farmers and ranchers, miners and copper companies, environmentalists and property owners. Montana is where the Unabomber declared war on modern civilization, and where the extremist Freemen holed up in their compound and defied federal authority. If you live in the East, Montana is a place you tend to hear about only when people there are mad at each other about something.

Given that rather widespread perception of intractable Rocky Mountain orneriness, it's interesting that Montana is currently the nation's leading laboratory for experiments in making crucial public decisions by a formal process of consensus. The governor and lieutenant governor are true believers in it. The former governor (and current national Republican Party chairman) headed a task force on it. The state's lone representative in the U.S. House has introduced a bill to put it in place at the national level.

It's easier to find enthusiasts for the consensus method than it is to pin down exactly how it works. Essentially, however, it works this way: A panel is chosen that includes a representative from every significant interest group with a stake in the issue. They meet face to face, agree to take each other seriously, to stay at it as long as necessary, and to focus on finding a mutually acceptable result rather than merely looking for avenues of self-expression.

To be truthful, it sounds like little more than common sense. And yet it has been employed in Montana to resolve the most complex disagreements involving land use policy, hazardous waste disposal and treatment of the mentally ill. "The consensus process strips away all the extraneous issues and allows people to speak to each other," says Lieutenant Governor Karl Ohs. "Most of the time, people learn that the other side is not as 'wrong' as they initially thought."

Would it work on a national level? We may get to find out. Legislation introduced in the U.S. House by Montana Republican Dennis Rehberg, and in the Senate by North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan, would create a national Consensus Council, along the lines of the ones that currently exist in those two states. Congress would pass along issues that have proven immune to conventional legislative solution. The council would assemble the stakeholders, convene the meeting and try to guide it toward common ground.

You're excused for thinking that this kind of lock-'em-in-a-room consensus-building would be hard to sell on a national stage in dealing with issues as incendiary and multi-sided as Social Security, tax reduction or missile defense. I'm inclined to agree. But the record at the state level is actually quite encouraging. The consensus movement wasn't born in Montana--the nation's first consensus council was the one established in North Dakota in 1991. It still exists, and has recorded some tangible progress—in restructuring the state court system and in brokering agreement over medical procedures for the terminally ill. But the real proving ground has been Montana, where Marc Racicot ran for governor in 1992 on a consensus-building platform, and created a Consensus Council by executive order as soon as he took office. "There's not much difference of opinion," Racicot likes to say, "among thoughtful people."

This may depend on one’s definition of "thoughtful." Even in Montana, there are many who consider it wishful thinking. On the other hand, it clearly drove Racicot's approach to problem-solving during two successful terms in office. The crucial test of the process came in 1995 on the issue of hazardous waste. Mining companies were balking at a state law that held them responsible for cleaning up a contaminated site even when a previous owner was responsible for the damage. Environmentalists feared that if the law were repealed, nobody would do the cleanup. The legislature handed this problem off to the state Department of Environmental Quality. The DEQ called in the Consensus Council, which created an ad hoc committee built around five component interests: industry, environmentalists, the state, the federal government and local government. This committee met regularly for a year. At the end of the year, they emerged with a formula that apportioned cleanup costs according to 12 specific factors, and provided that a judge would weigh the factors in each individual case. All the parties signed off on the deal, and the legislature approved it overwhelmingly when it met in the next regular session.

If you think it can't be that simple, you're right. On other issues in the same state, the consensus process has flopped. After the success on hazardous waste, it was tried on the issue of facility siting. Utility companies in Montana felt that state laws made it too difficult for them to build new generating capacity. Environmentalists resisted efforts to make the laws more lenient. The Consensus Council carefully put together another stakeholder panel, with coal companies, electric companies, environmentalists and consumer advocates, and it met more than 25 times over a period of two years. But nothing close to an agreement ever emerged, and the pro-environment forces ultimately felt the industry just rolled over them in the legislature as soon as it realized it had the votes to do so. So there have been wins and losses. After five years, the Consensus Council reported that it had fostered agreement on 11 issues, failed on six, and was still working on three others. Since then, the group has taken on nearly 20 more.

Last year, when a debate occurred over asbestos cleanup in the town of Libby, newly elected Governor Judy Martz resisted pleas to create a federal Superfund site. She said she preferred to try the consensus process. "I'd like to get some help from the Consensus Council," the governor said. "They've done some terrific work." And the legislature, after a long period of suspecting the consensus process to be largely a gimmick, has begun looking to it as a primary policy option in the initial stages of a policy dispute. Matthew Mc- Kinney, the director of the Council, says that's the way to measure its progress. "The challenge now," he argues, "is how we move from being a last resort to being a first resort."

At this point you may be wondering what the difference is between invoking a consensus process and appointing a blue-ribbon commission to solve the problem. A few decades ago in this country, we relied on commissions to solve a good many of our most perplexing problems, at all levels of government. When the schools didn't seem to be working properly, or the military needed reform, or there was too much waste in the bureaucracy, we appointed the best minds available, waited for their report, and then generally followed their advice. It didn't make problems disappear overnight, but most of the time it did some good. As you may have noticed, the commission approach hasn't worked so well lately. The president appoints a distinguished panel to look into Social Security, or violence, or race relations, or obscenity in the media, and they come out a few months later as bitterly divided as they went in.

I think that's largely because the structure of the whole process has changed. When President Truman or President Eisenhower appointed a commission to deal with a national problem, it was assumed that the commissioners themselves were above the battle, and had no agenda other than the national interest. This wasn't true, of course—anybody who qualifies as an expert on an issue is bound to have some sort of agenda--but by and large, the country was willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt. It was a different time. Most Americans believed middle-aged men sitting around a table knew what was best for everyone. We don't believe that anymore. And so if we're going to use consensus to solve problems in the 21st century, it can't be a consensus of non-partisan wise men. It has to be a consensus of active and open partisans who bring all their opinions and goals to the table and make an honest effort to balance them out. That's true at the national level, and it's true in the states.

But something else is required as well. The participants genuinely have to believe that they can gain more by reaching agreement than by defending their own turf. That's what's been missing in most of the blue-ribbon commissions in federal government during the past decade or so. The insurance executives and advocates for the elderly and other specialists empanelled to deal with entitlement issues, for example, have come to the table as interest group standard-bearers, and rarely have risen above that vantage point. What's really interesting about the consensus movement in the states has been the ability of the stakeholders to see the larger truth: In the long run, a negotiated solution benefits all sides more than unending confrontation, even confrontation that offers occasional victories. In the end, the hard part isn't finding the stakeholders, or getting them into a room, it's helping them see that if they walk away without accomplishing anything, everyone loses.

Perhaps it's surprising that Montana, a place with such a long history of confrontation and intransigence, would be ahead of the rest of the country in appreciating this. Then again, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising at all.

Len Hockley:

This is a little late in coming but I just ran into a concept that might be helpful for the future. It's called Sociocracy and has been around for over a hundred years. It seems from a cursory view to be a viable alternative to consensus as we know it. See http://www.sociocracy.info.

---------------------------