Summary
Contents
Subject index
This handbook on group decision-making for those wanting to operate in a consensus fashion stresses the advantages of informal, common sense approaches to working together. It describes how any group can put these approaches into practice, and relates numerous examples of situations in which such approaches have been applied.
Introduction
Every day, people are faced with the need to work with others in group settings to make decisions and solve problems. Whether they are part of a corporate team that is seeking to set strategic goals for the year or members of an ad hoc community task force tackling a complex public issue such as urban sprawl, most group members would probably rather make decisions and solve problems in a way that meets their own needs and satisfies everyone else around the table. Many people are convinced, however, that consensus—especially within large groups—is not a reasonable objective. They believe that most people are selfish and will pursue their own goals rather than search for solutions that satisfy everyone. They also assume that whenever hard choices have to be made, some people will win and some will have to lose.
From our standpoint, these assumptions are simply not true. Through a new approach to problem solving—called consensus building—groups can forge agreements that satisfy everyone's primary interests and concerns. Using consensus-based approaches, groups can jointly develop solutions and make decisions that are more creative and more widely supported than those made using traditional decision-making methods (such as top-down decision making or even parliamentary procedure). In the process, group participants gain a mutual respect for and an understanding of each other's viewpoints, enabling them to work together more effectively in the long term. Agreements made by consensus are often more readily implemented than decisions made in other ways, because people are more likely to support an agreement that they had a hand in shaping. The benefits of consensus building have been proven true by hundreds of groups around the United States and elsewhere.
By looking closely at the experiences of a wide range of such groups, we have determined that consensus building works best when four preconditions are met. First, group participants must tap the right kind of facilitation or mediation assistance. In the same way that groups have relied in the past on parliamentarians or experienced moderators, consensus building depends on facilitators and mediators to help manage the process, so that participants can bring all their energies to bear on the substance. Second, groups need to formalize their commitment to consensus building by adopting written ground rules or bylaws. Those who participate in consensus-based discussions are more productive and more comfortable operating within agreed-on behavioral and procedural guidelines. Third, groups that want to operate by consensus must allow themselves sufficient time to build their capacity to work in this way. Members must learn how to think about not only what meets their needs but also what might satisfy the interests of others. This may feel awkward at first, but over time, their patience and commitment will be rewarded. Finally, and perhaps most important, participants need a clear map outlining how to build consensus. This Handbook seeks to provide that map.
Areas of Application
Consensus building knows no topical boundaries. The examples in this Handbook deal with topics as diverse as corporate employment practices, the public health effects of air pollution, and the rights of indigenous peoples. Consensus building processes can be organized around public issues of concern at the neighborhood scale, the city level, and the state level, as well as the national or even international level. Such discussions typically involve people who represent a diverse range of interests and opinions. So, for example, a consensus-based negotiation regarding a community's air pollution problem might include doctors and public health experts, representatives of environmental groups, residents affected by the pollution, local industries that emit regulated substances, other local business interests, and officials from the state agency responsible for regulating air quality. Consensus building techniques and strategies are also productively employed, of course, to address issues that concern only a few people, such as a corporate team, a board of directors, or a church committee.
Ad Hoc versus Permanent Groups
In developing this book, we discovered that the advice we had to offer was best directed to two categories of groups: temporary (or ad hoc) groups and permanent groups. While the distinction between ad hoc and permanent groups is not entirely satisfying or clear, it leads to important insights regarding the practice of consensus building.
In trying to articulate the distinction, we have focused on where group participants' loyalties lie. So, while a work team drawn from different parts of a corporation and given a short-term assignment is technically ad hoc, that team is best understood as part of an ongoing corporate entity. The participants on the team probably think of themselves as long-term members of the corporation. Likewise, a coalition of community organizations created to take on a new problem might continue its efforts for several months or even years, but because the members share no history or long-term responsibility to each other, the coalition is best understood as a temporary entity. The members of that coalition will (if they do their jobs well) stay focused on their long-term obligations to the organizations that sent them. The members of a body, such as a board of directors or a city council, may turn over very quickly, but while members of such a body, they would do well to take account of the history of that group and their obligations to the entity's long-term well-being. Thus, we consider groups such as these to be “permanent.”
People who are members of ad hoc groups focus on their obligations and responsibilities to the organizations or groups they have been asked to represent. By contrast, people who serve as members of permanent organizations, even for a short time, typically pay special attention to the long-term well-being of that entity. The implications for the design and implementation of consensus building processes are quite important. For example, the participants in a consensus building process at a permanent organization should probably invest considerable time evaluating how they are doing and what they have learned. Such an investment would not make sense in a temporary group. Ad hoc assemblies must always spend a great deal of time getting organized. In the absence of institutionalized relationships and prior understandings, every aspect of process design and communication is “up for grabs.” While permanent organizations may want to change how they have done things in the past, they still have a history to build on. Moreover, the participants share at least their commitment to the organization of which they are all a part. The full significance of the distinction between ad hoc assemblies and permanent organizations and its impact on consensus building will become clear as the Handbook unfolds.
Common Misperceptions
People who have never been part of a consensus building process often make a number of wrong assumptions about what is involved. We want to dispel five common misperceptions.
I Will Have to Give up Authority
Elected or appointed officials, in the case of ad hoc dialogues in the public arena, and senior managers in a corporate context, often react negatively to the idea of consensus building. They assume that the only way agreement can be reached is if they give up some or all of their authority. In practice, this is not true. In a consensus building process, any player can walk away at any time. Unless the most important stakeholders “buy into” an agreement, there won't be one. If the process produces an agreement that meets each party's needs, all key stakeholders will concur. If it doesn't, they will walk away and return to whatever form of decision making they used before attempting to operate by consensus.
I Will Be Pressured to Betray My Constituents
Inexperienced participants sometimes assume that the way consensus is reached is through compromise—by everyone giving up some of what they want for the sake of agreement. Experienced negotiators, however, know that this is not the case. They understand that consensus must represent an outcome that is better for each stakeholder than his or her next-best option (if agreement is not reached). No one should ever give up what is important to them just so a group can reach agreement.
I Will Lose Face
Even some experienced negotiators assume that the way to get what they want is to “look tough” and to “give the other side a hard time.” Consensus building, they assume, is for “weaklings.” As it turns out, the negotiators with the best reputations are the ones who almost always get a good deal for the person across the table as well. The pressure they feel is to generate an agreement that meets everyone's interests. They are not concerned with looking tough. They stay focused on the outcomes they want to achieve. If consensus building produces good outcomes (and leaves relationships intact so that future negotiations are easier), then they know they will get credit for their success.
I Will Have to Help My “Enemies”
Experienced negotiators, agents, and representatives usually concentrate on meeting their own interests very well, while meeting other groups' interests tolerably. While they don't seek to help their “enemies” at their own expense, they aren't out to hurt them either. For participants in controversies who are as concerned about hurting their adversaries as they are about meeting their own interests, consensus building may not be a good way to proceed. The goal of consensus building is to do well for yourself or your “side,” not to hurt your enemies.
I Will Be Forced to Abandon My Principles
No participants in a consensus building process need ever assume that they must abandon their principles for the sake of agreement. Even when participants cannot explain why they feel that something is wrong or why they can't go along with it, they are entitled to stay out of an emerging agreement. Every participant in a consensus building process is free to disagree with whatever is proposed, for any reason whatsoever, and it should be the mediator's (or facilitator's) job to protect the person from harsh group reactions if he or she is the only holdout. While it helps a problem-solving process if everyone gives reasons for their opposition to particular ideas or suggestions, even that is not required. Consensus building does not assume that principles should be traded or abandoned for the sake of agreement. No agreement is always a legitimate outcome!
About This Book
The Consensus Building Handbook is meant as a reference, like an encyclopedia. We don't expect that very many people will read it from cover to cover. We do expect, however, that it will be useful to a wide range of audiences—essentially anyone who is contemplating convening or participating in a consensus building process. While we also believe dispute resolution professionals will be interested in the book, and may find the “best practices” described within it useful, it is written for a much broader audience. The Handbook stresses the advantages of informal, commonsense approaches to working together. It describes how any group can put these approaches into practice, and it relates numerous examples of situations in which such approaches have been applied.
The Handbook has three interrelated parts. Part 1 is called “A Short Guide to Consensus Building.” It offers a summary of the prescriptive advice contained in the rest of the Handbook. The “Short Guide” is written as an alternative to the most well-known method of group decision making: the parliamentary procedures spelled out in Robert's Rules of Order (Robert, 1990). Robert's Rules assumes that the majority should get what it wants, even if the minority is left with little or nothing. All that is necessary to “win” is a larger coalition with more votes. The losers must wait until they can attract more supporters and try again. Parliamentary procedure relies on elaborate rules specifying when and how motions (i.e., proposals) can be made, how discussions should be managed (by a moderator), and how voting should be handled. The “Short Guide to Consensus Building” spells out procedural alternatives to Robert's Rules for groups that want to operate by consensus. These procedures can be referenced by any group or organization trying to write bylaws or draft guidelines to govern how they will make decisions and conduct their business. The “Short Guide” also provides helpful definitions for the most commonly used (and confused!) terms relating to consensus building.
A summary matrix in the “Short Guide” lists the most important topics and techniques covered in the Handbook. For readers interested in how to sort and modify ground rules, for example, the matrix indicates the relevant prescriptions in the “Short Guide” as well as the relevant chapters that discuss the underlying theory.
Part 2 is made up of 17 chapters that describe the various phases, facets, and forms of consensus building. These chapters capture the wisdom of America's most experienced dispute resolution professionals; each is written by a mediator, facilitator, or scholar with specific expertise in the chapter's subject matter. Chapter 1, “Choosing Appropriate Consensus Building Techniques and Strategies,” serves as an introduction to the chapters and cases; it describes the many factors that need to be considered in organizing a consensus-based effort and, in the process, touches on points made in all the other chapters and cases in the Handbook. Of the remaining chapters, some focus on a step or phase in a typical consensus building process (such as convening or implementing agreements); some describe activities that are typically undertaken in any attempt to build consensus (such as managing meetings or using facilitators or mediators); others explain how to deal with specific issues (such as press coverage or deep value differences among participants); and still others describe how to use consensus-based procedures in specific settings (such as within a single organization). All of the chapters provide practical advice for both organizers of and participants in consensus building processes on how to successfully seek agreement in and among diverse groups.
Part 3 of the Handbook contains 17 case studies that illustrate the many applications of and variations on consensus building. The cases, which are cross-referenced in the chapters, describe consensus-based efforts that have taken place in both the public and private sectors, in ad hoc and permanent groups, from the local level up to the national level, on a wide range of substantive topics. Some of the cases were written by independent evaluators or researchers; others describe the firsthand experiences of those involved. The cases can be read independently of the chapters, but readers should be aware that many of the cases illustrate only selected aspects of consensus building. The “Introduction to the Cases and Commentaries” summarizes each case.
The cases are accompanied by commentaries, written by experts in nine different fields (law, anthropology, political philosophy, environmental science, decision science, ethics, political economics, history, and social psychology). In the commentaries, these experts provide insight into and questions about the consensus processes described in the cases, from their particular disciplinary or professional perspective. None of the commentators' voices is heard in more than five of the cases.
At the back of the book readers will find a selected bibliography, a list of contributors, and a comprehensive index. If you are not sure where to begin, you could look in the index for a topic or case study that intrests you.
Reference
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life -
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Read next
More like this
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches