Conscious Choice: Consensus for Healthy Decision-Making

January 1996

Consensus for Healthy Decision-Making

by Beatrice Briggs & Shari Leyshon

To build a healthy community, the question "Who decides?" or "How will we decide?" must be answered. Making clear choices about the fundamental issues of power and process can transform a diverse group of people into a strong, stable, loving community. Today more and more people are disillusioned with "top-down" structures in which a powerful few make decisions for everyone. Even the democratic ideal of majority rule is found wanting because it almost always results in a disempowered minority. All over the world people are seeking ways to discuss and resolve common problems and build a future for their children which is both ecologically sound and socially just. The decision-making process which best supports this intention is called consensus.

Consensus is the way a group of equals makes decisions. The process rests on the fundamental belief that each person has a piece of the truth. Each member of the group, therefore, must be given space and time in which to speak his or her truth, and each must be listened to with respect. On the other hand, individuals cannot be permitted to dominate the group; in consensus, as in ecosystems, each individual rules and is ruled by the larger community. In this web of reciprocal relationships, the beauty and strength of the whole is created.

This is not to suggest, however, that consensus process presupposes, or automatically confers, complete peace and harmony within a group. Given the depth of our current social pathology and the complexity of the decisions we face, conflict is inevitable. In fact, in groups that are truly diverse, differences are both a sign of health and an invitation to creativity. Non-violent resolution of conflict and the collaborative development of decisions that everyone in the group can support are the principle goals of the consensus process.

Consensus is not a panacea. It will not work in every situation. In order to invoke the power and magic of consensus, five main elements must be in place: (1) common purpose, (2) willingness to share power, (3) informed commitment to the consensus process, (4) strong agenda, (5) effective facilitation. Let us briefly examine each of these essential ingredients.

Common Purpose. Without an overarching purpose to unify and focus its efforts, a group will spin its wheels endlessly, trapped in confusion, frustration and ego battles. At the times when the group’s process deteriorates into a shouting match, or its motivation is weakened by apathy or despair, it is important to be able to say, "Remember why we are all here." A group’s purpose may change over time and its mission statement may need to be revised, but at least everyone will know what is being changed and why.

Willingness to Share Power. Participants in a consensus group must be willing to give up hierarchical roles and privileges and to function as equals. The contributions of experts, professionals and elders are, of course, welcome, but they must not be allowed to silence the voices of other members of the group. People accustomed to being in charge often have difficulty letting others share in the decision-making. They ask for ideas, input, and assistance, and pay lip service to the egalitarian, participatory ideals of consensus. But as long as they retain the decision-making power, they are violating the integrity of the process.

Informed Commitment to Consensus Process. Because consensus is radically different from the way most of us have been conditioned to function, the process needs to be carefully explained, and the fundamental principles reviewed from time to time. The more people in the group who understand the process, the better it will work. Often the first consensus decision that a group makes is the choice to use consensus, or at least to try it for a certain period of time. Ongoing evaluation of the group’s process not only acknowledges its successes, but also identifies areas in which improvement is needed. This information is critical to the group’s self-education and growth.

Strong Agenda. The lack of an agenda, an agenda controlled exclusively by one or two "leaders," and poorly prepared agendas all undermine the consensus process. They waste people’s time, erode their trust and diminish a group’s effectiveness. In contrast, a group which designates a few people to plan the agenda, and which then collectively reviews the proposed agenda, revises it as necessary, and formally adopts it by consensus, and then honors this agenda contract, is a group committed to its own success.

Effective Facilitation. A facilitator is the custodian of the consensus process, a "servant-leader" whose purpose is to help the group make the best decisions possible. A facilitator is a guide, not a participant in the discussion. He or she must be assiduously neutral about the topics being discussed and fair in the treatment of all the members in the group, showing no favoritism. A facilitator does not give answers, but rather continuously asks questions intended to equalize participation ("Are we hearing from everyone?"), elicit wisdom ("Are their any other ideas?"), and clarify the group’s situation ("Are we ready to move on?"). To practice the art of facilitation, one needs patience, stamina, the ability to remain calm in the face of conflict, a good memory, a sense of humor, and genuine love for the group which he or she is serving.

In consensus process, no votes are taken. Ideas or proposals are introduced, discussed, and eventually arrive at the point of decision. In making a decision, a participant in a consensus group has three options:

1. To block. This step prevents the decision from going forward, at least for the time being. Blocking is a serious matter, to be done only when one truly believes that the pending proposal, if adopted, would violate the morals, ethics or safety of the whole group. One probably has a lifetime limit of three to four blocks, so this right should be exercised with great care. If you frequently find yourself wanting to block, you may be in the wrong group.

2. To stand aside. An individual stands aside when he or she cannot personally support a proposal, but feels it would be all right for the rest of the group to adopt it. Standing aside is a stance of principled non-participation, which absolves the individual from any responsibility for implementing the decision in question. Stand asides are recorded in the minutes of the meeting. If there are more than a few stand asides on an issue, consensus has not yet been reached.

3. To give consent. When everyone in the group (except those standing aside), says "yes" to a proposal, consensus is achieved. To give one’s consent does not necessarily mean that one loves every aspect of the proposal, but it does mean that one is willing to support the decision and stand in solidarity with the group, despite one’s disagreements.

Consensus decisions can only be changed by reaching another consensus. A group which makes decisions in this way is unequaled in its ability be an effective agent of social transformation.

Beatrice Briggs and Shari Leyshon are principals in Great Lakes Consensus, an organization which offers facilitation training and services.

Bogus Consensus: A Guide for the Unwary

Ground Rules for Participants in Consensus Groups

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: