Last Updated on 9 February 2022 by policychair
Created by on Mar 07, 2021
What is consensus-based decision-making?
Consensus is a form of decision-making that stresses the cooperative development of a group’s decision. The goal of consensus is to arrive at the best possible decision by including the contributions and consent of all members of the group.
Reaching consensus requires considerable individual responsibility to speak the truth as each person sees it, to state points clearly without putdown of others, to respect others and encourage their contributions to avoid win/lose thinking, and to use disagreements and arguments to learn, grow, and change.
Consensus does not mean that everyone thinks the decision made is necessarily the best one possible, or event act they are sure it will work. What it does mean is that in coming to the decision, no one felt that her/his position on the matter was misunderstood or that it wasn’t given a proper hearing.
The fundamental right of consensus is for all people to be able to express themselves in their own words. The fundamental responsibility of consensus is to assure others of their right to speak and be heard. Coercion and trade-offs that occur in majority-rule voting are replaced with creative alternatives, and synthesis.
Participants’ parts and responsibilities
“In a meeting governed by Robert’s Rules, the ideal participant is rational, articulate, and knowledgable about procedure.
The ideal consensus participant is cooperative and speaks their piece of the truth on behalf of the whole group. They discern what is key for the group and what is merely their personal view, and they let go of the latter. They assume their share of responsibility for creating a safe, productive meeting.”
Participants may wish to consider the following three points before deciding their final decision or vote:
- “I believe that others understand my point of view”
- “I believe I understand others’ point of view”
- Whether or not I prefer this decision, I support it (and will not undermine it) because it was arrived at openly and fairly and is the best solution this committee can reach at this time.
The difference between consensus and voting
Voting is a means by which we choose one alternative from several. Consensus, on the other hand, is a process of synthesising many diverse elements together. Because of this, it requires that people listen to each other, ask questions, have an open dialogue, etc. These things are not always necessary when people lock into positions and vote, with the majority ruling.
In addition, voting does not take into account individual feelings or needs. In essence, it emphasises quantity – number of votes – over quality and how decisions are arrived at. With consensus, people really try to work through differences and reach a mutually satisfactory position. It is possible for one person’s insights or strongly held beliefs to sway the whole group. No ideas are lost, each member’s input is valued as part of the solution.
Forming the consensus proposal
A consensus process is facilitated by two people, usually the ARSC Chair and Vice Chair.
Final proposals are recorded and read back to the Committee by another member or members, usually the Secretary and Assistant Secretary.
At the Australian Regional Service Committee (ARSC) Meeting, a new proposal is put forward or emerges through discussion, during the discussion or new business items on the agenda.
- Proposals may develop during ARSC discussion periods in response to issues raised by participants.
- Other proposals may have been the subject of deliberation by an ARSC Subcommittee, Area Service Committee (ASC), or other NA group or body.
- The normal business of the ARSC will also necessitate proposals to be put before the ARSC.
Proposals are amended and modified through discussion, or withdrawn if they seem to be at a dead end. During discussion, it is important to articulate differences clearly. It is the responsibility of those who are having trouble with a proposal to put forth alternative suggestions.
When a proposal seems to be well understood by everyone, and there are no more changes suggested, the facilitator(s) can ask if there are any objections or reservations to it. If there are no objections, there can be a call for consensus. If there are still no objections, then after a moment of silence you have your decision.
Once consensus does appear reached, the decision should be repeated to the group so everyone is clear on what has been decided.
Expressing reservations and objections
There are several ways participants may express an objection to a proposal. Participants may ask that their objection is noted in the minutes of the meeting.
- Non-support (“I don’t see the need for this, but I’ll go along”)
- Reservations (“I think this may be a mistake but I can live with it”)
- Standing aside (“I personally can’t do this, but I won’t stop others from doing it”)
If no new consensus can be reached, the group stays with whatever the previous decision was on the subject, or does nothing if that is applicable.
History
A brief background
For most of its history the Australian Regional Service Committee (ARSC) used a decision-making process based on Robert’s Rules of Order.
“Robert’s Rules of Order were created after the American Civil War by a US Army Officer, Henry Martyn Robert. They lay out procedures for getting proposals raised, discussed, and voted on in meetings directed by a chairperson. It is based on the belief that a majority can be counted on to make decisions that will work for the whole group, and that rules for orderly deliberation are the best guide to getting there.”
For several years the ARSC has been in the process of discussing and developing consensus-based decision-making. ARSC Subcommittee guidelines have included consensus as the means for decision-making for many years.
Why the Change?
A number of ARSC participants, past and present, believe that a consensus-based decision-making process is a better means of achieving our Fellowship’s purposes, and that Robert’s Rules of Order do not sit well with the spiritual nature of our service structure implied by our 12 Concepts.
For example, Concept 6 states: Group conscience is the means by which we invite a loving God to influence our decisions.
Concept 7 states: All members of a service body bear substantial responsibility for that body’s decisions and should be allowed to fully participate in its decision-making process.
Concept 9 states: All elements of our service structure have the responsibility to carefully consider all viewpoints in their decision-making process.
Primary source: ‘Rules for a friendly meeting’ prepared by The Evergreen State College Labor Education & Research Centre
Additional material:
12 Concepts for NA Service
Comparison of Robert’s Rules of Order, Consensus Process, and dynamic Facilitation’, by Tom Atlee and Rosa Zubizarreta. With help from Jim Rough, Lysbeth Borie, Sam Kaner, Win Swafford, John Flanery, Keith Brown, Liz Biagioli, Sarah Loguidice, Dianne Brause, Devin Dinihanian, Alexis Reed, and Peggy Holman. Office of Quality Improvement and Office of Human Resource Development, University of Wisconsin.