Home > Consensus decision-making
Consensus decision-making is a decision process that not only seeks the agreement of a majority of participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning: a) general agreement, and b) the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process. The method is intended to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices. The method also increases the likelihood of unforeseen or creative solutions by juxtaposing dissimilar ideas. Because it seeks to minimize objection, it is popular with voluntary organizations, wherein decisions are more likely to be carried out when they are most widely approved. Consensus methods are desirable when enforcement of the decision is unfeasible, such that every participant will be required to act on the decision independently. Minority views must be considered to a greater degree than in circumstances where a majority can take the action and enforce the decision without any further consultation with the minority voters. It is often thought that consensus can require more time and effort to achieve. Thus some groups may reserve consensus decision methods for particularly complex, risky or important decisions.
However, there are many examples of groups who employ consensus decision-making in ways that enable them to consider minority views and make decisions in a timely and efficient manner. These will be outlined below.
1 Key principles
Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (say 50% plus one, or 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives, and in general spending considerably more time in debate and in checking that people understand a proposal or an argument.
This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are ineloquent in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy.
Egalitarian groups that seek to reduce the amount of power delegated to leaders, chairpersons or agenda setters often use consensus methods. Such methods can reduce the amount of harm or loss imposed on minorities (or individuals) by a majority. Consensus methods may be appropriate when personal (or emotional) risk to members is high, trust is low, and time is available for a prolonged discussion. Consensus may be used to remedy patterns of decision-making based on habit, subservience or carelessness.
Like any group decision-making, consensus decision-making can disempower those not present in the debating forum, as they cannot expect to have input on the new measures that are proposed (whereas they could have had considerable time for input into the known alternatives prior to the debate). Accordingly, most systems of consensus decision-making place a premium on participation, empowering those whose alternative time uses are less attractive.
Three key issues tend to define a particular type of consensus decision-making:
- degree of agreement or unanimity required;
- timing of presentation including division of time among urgent versus important matters;
- follow-up to action including the monitoring that arises from dissent, and from claims of majority proponents whose preferred course of action is being taken over minority objections.
There is also the question of facilitation or process leadership, which is handled separately at the end of this article.
1.1 Consensus is not unanimous: so who must agree?
A healthy consensus decision-making process usually encourages and outs dissent early, maximizing the chance of accommodating the views of all minorities.
It also usually assigns a role to the dissenter, e.g. the Vatican assigns the role of Devil's Advocate to a specific priest who argues against beatification of a saint, to ensure the case 'against' remains well represented. After the decision, the dissenting minority may have some role to play in monitoring the decision. In the Supreme Court of the United States, both the majority opinion and minority opinion are equally well-documented, as the legal grounds for agreeing with either may exist in some court in future.
Differing degrees of consensus provide differing group dynamics. If unanimity is rejected, then various definitions of consensus can be invoked, most easily defined as follows:
- Unanimity: Many groups consider unanimous decisions a sign of agreement, solidarity, and unity. However, there is considerable and difficult-to-controvert evidence that most unanimous decisions are a sign of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives, or plain impatience with the process of debate.
- "Unanimity minus one" or U-1, requires all delegates but one to support the decision. The individual dissenter cannot block the decision although they may be able to prolong debate (e.g. via a filibuster). The dissenter may be the ongoing monitor of the implications of the decision, and their opinion of the outcome of the decision may be solicited at some future time. Betting markets in particular rely on the input of such lone dissenters, which discipline the market's odds, and profit handsomely when they correctly foresee the future.
- A betting market can reasonably be considered a U-1 consensus system on the odds themselves: the lone bettor against the odds profits when his or her prediction of the outcomes proves to be better than that of the majority. Even the simple majority rule systems tend to invoke U-1 rules when setting agendas, that is, a single individual cannot propose a measure, it must be 'seconded' to be heard out.
- "Unanimity minus two" or U-2, does not permit two individual delegates to block a decision, nor one, but it curtails debate with a lone dissenter more quickly so that dissenting pairs can present multiple (hopefully different) views of what is wrong with the decision the majority is contemplating. By focusing on a pair of dissenters, and allocating less time to lone wolves or 'consensus thugs', a U-2 system tends to form stronger bonds among those who find themselves 'alone on an island with' each other. Pairs of delegates should be empowered to cut deals, make ethical tradeoffs, and otherwise find the common ground that will enable them to convince a third, decision-blocking, voter to join them. If two individual delegates cannot convince a third delegate in some finite period of time to join them, then their arguments are considered to be unconvincing or immature or self-interested. However, the consensus process of U-2 has maximized their chance to get to know each other and to cooperate, so a truly effective presentation and marshalling of support may be possible later on.
- Venture capitalists tend to value these traits, and so most will consider hearing a business plan only if it is presented by a pair of business partners already committed to working with each other. Since only a tiny minority (under 1%) of business plans heard are funded, the experience of joint development of an entrepreneurial opportunity (which itself must challenge majority views of value prevalent in the market, or it fails) is considered to be very important. Venture capitalists often remark after losing money that they do not regret it, as they learned and gained a great deal from having funded a particular pair of business partners. If two people dissent against some common measure, it is more likely that the discussion between them can be extended to third parties easily, since it is already verbalized and illustrated. Western European and derived court systems recognize this by strongly encouraging criminal defendants or civil plaintiffs to get an attorney's aid, so that their case can be fully heard out long before the decision.
- "Unanimity minus three", or U-3, and other such systems tend to simply recognize the ability of three or more delegates to actively block or sabotage a decision; A decision is moot if sufficient opposition is present to block implementation; However, there is controversy over whether a small group of dissenters, e.g. militants or terrorists, is fundamentally morally different than a large minority, e.g. an opposition party with support of double-digit percentages of the population. Accordingly U-3 and lesser degrees of consensus are usually lumped in with statistical measures of agreement:
- "80%, mean plus one sigma, Two-Thirds, 50% plus one" levels of agreement are simply statistical measurements of the number of delegates (or voters that they represent by proxy) agreeing. They imply a smaller group that disagrees with the decision, or abstains, and which may have various rights to appeal or to overturn a decision later, perhaps even before it is actually implemented. A majority rule system usually has at least some measures where executive veto or larger agreement (typically 2/3) is required for implementation of any measure. For instance, the President of the United States can veto a bill presented by (and agreed by a simple majority vote in each house of) Congress, but the Congress can override his veto by a 2/3 majority vote. Thus there is considerable effort put into anticipating vetos, levels of party discipline or factional dealing... as a result the Congress very often resembles a combination market and consensus decision-making forum, with members trading off votes to establish support for measures they truly care about, giving up power on measures they don't care as much for. As this example suggests, timing can count for as much as voting.
