Reaching Consensus on Consensus
Sandor P. Schuman
"Have we reached consensus?" is a question asked by leaders striving to get everyone involved, while still trying to get everyone to act. Often asked with a tone of frustration, it obscures another question: What do we mean by consensus? Consensus can mean many things: that every group member had an opportunity to influence the final decision; that all legitimate concerns were addressed; that the decision was one everyone can live with; substantial agreement; some specified degree of agreement; or unanimity. Wouldn't it be helpful if we could reach consensus on what we mean by consensus? To do so, let's disentangle consensus as a process from consensus as an outcome.
Consensus as an outcome
As an outcome, consensus describes the result of decision making, rather than the process or means of decision making. For example, "Consensus means that everyone in the group freely agrees with the decision and will support it. If even one person cannot agree with a proposed decision, then the group does not have consensus" (Schwarz 1989, 29). This definition of consensus describes the decision reached by the group as an outcome of its activity. A number of definitions (or descriptions) of consensus focus on outcomes, with some significant variations. Several definitions are shown below to illustrate a range of views regarding consensus as an outcome.
A decision-making process in which all parties involved explicitly agree to the final decision. Consensus decision making does not mean that all parties are completely satisfied with the final outcome, but that the decision is acceptable to all because no one feels that his or her vital interests or values are violated by it. (Auvine et al. 1978, xii).
Consensus is achieved when each of the stakeholders agrees they can live with a proposed solution, even though it may not be their most preferred solution. (Gray 1989, 25).
Consensus is a state of mutual agreement among members of a group where all legitimate concerns of individuals have been addressed to the satisfaction of the group. (Saint and Lawson 1994, xii).
Straw-poll consensus. … After the board has had sufficient time for discussion about a particular topic, the chair asks each member to hold up fingers showing where s/he is on the levels of consensus scale show below. …
All of the above descriptions of consensus have in common that they focus on consensus as an outcome; they describe the nature, circumstances and level of agreement regarding the decision that is the result of the group’s activity. The following description of consensus differs from those above in that it seamlessly integrates concern for both process and outcome. A careful reading shows that while some statements focus on outcomes, most emphasize processes.
"Consensus means that every group member has an opportunity to influence the final decision. Members of the group reach substantial agreement, not necessarily unanimity. Consensus cannot be achieved by majority rule, ‘horse-trading,’ or averaging. Consensus frees the group from either/or thinking and emphasizes the possibilities of both/and thinking by focusing attention on needs and goals. In consensus seeking it is possible to achieve a solution that all members can regard as fair. When members strive for what is best for all, rather than trying to triumph over opponents, they fulfill the highest expectations of the democratic tradition." (Bradford 1976)
Consensus as a process
As a process, consensus addresses how individuals behave toward each other (their interpersonal interactions) as well as how they think about the issues or problems at hand (their analysis and intuition). Thus, consensus is both a social and a cognitive process. In practice, the social and cognitive aspects of consensus processes are inextricable. Nonetheless, it might be useful to examine consensus processes to see if both social and cognitive aspects are evident. One way to do this is to examine the ground rules that are sometimes used by groups. Ground rules are often introduced by facilitators to make explicit their expectations regarding how a meeting should be conducted. Some would argue that ground rules, when used, should be formally adopted by the group, even if initially proposed by the facilitator. As such, these ground rules represent the group’s consensus on consensus. Ground rules may address the outcomes of the group’s work, but typically most relate to the processes.
Moore and Feldt (1993) propose several ground rules to help individuals work together effectively. Below, some of the rules are categorized to show that some regulate predominantly cognitive processes, while others regulate predominantly social processes.
Ground rules that regulate predominantly |
Ground rules that regulate predominantly social processes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following is one more example, based on ground rules developed by Schwarz (1989), that illustrates how ground rules can be viewed as addressing both cognitive and social processes.
Ground rules that regulate predominantly |
Ground rules that regulate predominantly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These ground rules focus on processes (Schwarz included one more rule, "make decisions by consensus," which focuses on outcomes). Other sets of ground rules could be cited that incorporate more extensive rules for how decision outcomes are to be achieved (see, for example, Adminstrative Conference of the United States 1995).
Attention to consensus as an outcome is important. It makes explicit what participants must achieve to reach decisions. It sets a standard that is higher, and yet more flexible, than majority vote. However, by itself, it provides little aid regarding how the group should conduct itself. Attention to consensus as a process is also important. It makes clear how meetings will be conducted and what kinds of behaviors are to be mutually expected. However, by itself, it leaves to question what will be required to reach decisions.
Consensus in society
In a world where social values and factual knowledge change rapidly and are influenced by diverse sources, tradition and science are insufficient means for establishing truth or providing a basis for organizational or societal action. The democratic virtue of consensus ("truth by agreement," "action by commitment") is appealing, if not compelling. Consensus requires explicit attention to process as well as outcome, and sets high standards for both. Being aware of the range of process and outcome ground rules that are tenable, and working with a group to reach consensus on consensus, provides a valuable foundation for working on factious problems.
… what effects consensus and makes it convincing is not the agreement itself, but participation by those who arrived at it. (Moscovici and Doise 1994, 2).
In a democracy, the means are the ends.
References
Adminstrative Conference of the United States (1995). Negotiated Rulemaking Sourcebook. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office.
Auvine, B., Densmore, B., Extrom, M., Scott Poole, M., and Shankhn, M. (1978). A Manual for Group Facilitators. Madison, WI: Center for Conflict Resolution.
Bradford, L. P. (1976). Making Meetings Work: A Guide for Leaders and Group Members. San Diego: University Associates.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hanson, M. P. (1996). Golden Groundrules. Minneapolis MN: Meeting Needs.
Moore, A. B. and Feldt, J. A. (1993). Facilitating Community and Decision-Making Groups. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Moscovici, S. and Doise, W. (1994). Conflict and Consensus: A General Theory of Collective Decisions. London: Sage Publications.
Saint, S. and Lawson, J. R. (1994). Rules for Reaching Consensus: A Modern Approach to Decision Making. San Diego: Pfeiffer and Company.
Schwarz, R. M. (1989). Ground rules for effective groups. Popular Government, 54, 25-30. Reprinted in M. S. Herrman (ed.), Resolving Conflict: Strategies for Local Government. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
Webler, Thomas (1994). "Right" discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In Renn, O., Webler, T., and Wiedemann, P., eds., Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating models for Environmental Discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.