From: www.vernalproject.org/RPapers.shtml
Consensus Is Not Unanimity:
Making Decisions Cooperatively
by Randy Schutt
What is consensus? Is it a cooperative, loving, nonviolent
process in which people share their best ideas and come up with
superior decisions? Or is it a coercive, manipulative, time-wasting
process in which those who are most treacherous, are most
verbal, or have the most time can get their way? Or is it an idealistic
fantasy where every problem always has a good, simple
solution that incorporates everyone’s ideas (no matter how
ridiculous) and satisfies everyone completely? These are the
questions often raised by progressive activists.*
As a nonviolent activist since 1977, I have, of course, heard
all these views expressed. I’ve been at some wonderful meetings
that used consensus and some horrendous meetings that
(ostensibly) used consensus. There seems to be quite a bit of
confusion and ignorance about what the consensus process is,
how it should work, and when we should use it. In this paper, I
will outline what I’ve learned in studying and practicing consensus
over the years and try to dispel some myths.
Consensus is Not Unanimity
Many people think of consensus as simply an extended voting
method in which everyone must cast their votes the same way.
Since unanimity of this kind rarely occurs in groups with more
than one member, groups that try to use this kind of process
usually end up being either extremely frustrated or coercive.
Decisions are never made (leading to the demise of the group),
they are made covertly, or some group or individual dominates
the rest. Sometimes a majority dominates, sometimes a minority,
sometimes an individual who employs “the Block.” But no
matter how it is done, this coercive process is not consensus.
Consensus is a process for deciding what is best for a group.
The final decision is often not the first preference of any individual
in the group, and many may not even like the final result.
But it is a decision to which they all consent because they know
it is the best one for the group.
Consensus is a Cooperative Process
Consensus is a process for people who want to work together
honestly in good faith to find good solutions for the group. It
cannot be used by people who do not, can not, or will not cooperate.
Consensus should not be attempted in a group with people
who want to dominate or control others or who want to maintain
their privileges at the expense of others. In these situations, nonviolent
struggle would be a more appropriate process.
Consensus is a Valuable Step Toward Democracy
Consensus is a process that allows everyone in a group to
participate and work together nonviolently to make decisions —
the ultimate realization of a true democracy and very attractive
to anyone who has ever been dominated or oppressed. It gives
people the power to make decisions and also demands that they
take responsibility for those decisions. Rather than abdicating
power to a leader or representative, it demands that we take
complete responsibility. To me, establishing and modeling democratic and responsible governance is important, as valuable
as ending war or establishing justice.
Consensus is Better than Other Processes
If not consensus, then what? Usually, people offer voting as a
reasonably democratic alternative. But voting is not a meeting
process, it is only a procedure for tallying preferences. Kenneth
Arrow received a Nobel prize for proving it is impossible to
come up with a decision in a logical, fair, and equitable way by
combining the (existing) preferences of a group of people except
under very simple circumstances — for example, situations
when there are only two possible options. Even in these few
situations, voting fails to consider the intensity of preference
each individual feels — it does not take into account that one
person may feel very strongly opposed while many are mildly in
favor. It fails to consider the uneven distribution of consequences
a decision may impose — it fails to protect the rights of
people not to be hurt or killed if they are in the minority. It also
does a poor job of protecting the rights of future generations, the
environment, or any other party not voting. Whenever there is a
disagreement, voting necessarily means that the minority will
not get what they want, and if the majority severely tramples
them, they may leave the group or retaliate.
Voting can therefore only produce satisfying decisions if there
is unanimity of opinion, if everyone is extremely tolerant, or if
one person can persuade everyone else of the validity of her perspective
and her solution. But if people are enamored with different
proposals or there is competition for power in the group,
the process will often bog down, factionalize, or slide into coercive
manipulation.
Good consensus process avoids these problems by allowing
the members of the group to explore in depth the complete range
of options and concerns in a non-adversarial, cooperative atmosphere.
Discussions in small groups allow everyone, even those
who are not verbally adept, to express their ideas, concerns, and
opinions. Members of the group get a chance to learn from each
other’s experience and thinking, empathize with other’s experiences
and backgrounds, and gracefully change their minds as
they hear new ideas and arguments. They can challenge dumb,
obsolete, or immoral assumptions and solutions, and they can
explore unusual solutions (radical transformations, compromises,
bargains, etc.) that are often overlooked when the discussion
gets polarized or restrained by formal proposals. Individuals
can offer to give of their time or wealth or to suffer a loss for
the good of the group. And people can be persuaded, inspired,
loved, or counseled out of their prejudices, biases, and other
rigidities or, if this fails, nonviolently prevented from acting
immorally.
Of course, a good process that ends with a vote can also have
all these cooperative aspects. In fact, a good voting process may
be indistinguishable from a good consensus process until the
final step. But non-consensual processes usually rely on formal
proposals, debates, and other parliamentary procedures that
interfere with cooperation. Knowing there will be an up-down
vote at the end often polarizes the discussion. People may argue
for an extreme position so they can compromise to their true
goal.
Consensus is Not Conflict-Free or Painless
Good consensus process relies heavily on problem-solving,
questioning, empathy, self-sacrifice, and nonviolent direct
action. In a good process, conflict is not ignored or covered up,
but encouraged. Issues and proposed solutions are thoroughly
thrashed out until a good solution is found. Like any good nonviolent
action, ideas are severely challenged, but the people
involved are listened to, loved, and supported. When there are
no easy solutions, then individuals must be willing to sacrifice
their preferences for the good of the group or the group must
divide or disband. When one person or a group (a majority or
minority) refuses to or is unable to work cooperatively, everyone
else must boldly, yet tenderly, resist and challenge them, or if
necessary, push them out of the group (ideally, offering support
and guidance to their next endeavor).
Consensus Can Be Efficient
Many groups feel that they must allow every person in the
group to fully discuss every possible perspective on every issue.
When there is little trust in a group of people, this may be justified.
But consensus does not require this. In a cooperative,
trusting group it is possible to allow individuals or committees
to make most decisions with little or no discussion in the larger
group. When the group is pressed for time, quick — though less
ideal — decisions, can also be tolerated.
Consensus Requires Skill and a Desire to Cooperate
In a world made up of people who were all knowledgeable,
skilled, rational, loving, and cooperative, a group of people
could easily practice consensus well. But in our social change
organizations we find instead regular people who have been
reared in our violent society. Most are, therefore, ignorant of
many important aspects of consensus process and have little
experience using it. Moreover, they are often overworked, irrational,
and fragile, having been squashed and battered throughout
their lives.
To overcome these limitations, consensus is best practiced by
a group of people who are all committed and accountable to the
group and willing to spend time and energy to help it thrive. No
one should ever be given the power to block a group unless he
also accepts responsibility for working with the group to come
up with something better. Members of the group should all agree
to learn about consensus and practice their skills — preferably at
separate workshops, not in marathon meetings. They should all
agree to listen carefully to each other, draw out those who are
shy, support each other with love and respect, challenge each
other’s silly ideas, and cooperate for the common good.
They should agree that whenever they find themselves acting
irrationally or violently they will restrain themselves or leave
until they can work out their emotional difficulties. And they
should agree to challenge and/or throw each other out of the
group whenever they don’t adhere to these conditions.
Learning and practicing these skills and behaviors requires
some effort beyond what people usually know, so the group
must also decide explicitly that the consensus process is valuable
enough to devote substantial time and energy for sorting out
problems and learning new skills. Members should particularly
agree to spend some time evaluating every meeting so the decision
process can be continually improved.
Groups That Should Not Use Consensus
Groups with poor decision-making processes usually have not
met these conditions. These groups often allow anyone to join
the group and its decision-making process without any instruction
or screening. New members may not know the group uses
consensus or they may not truly agree to work cooperatively
with others. They may be very emotionally damaged (crazy) or
have a hidden agenda to destroy or co-opt the group. In these
groups, ideas about consensus are often passed along in a haphazard
way and often contaminated by notions from childhood
voting exercises or from hierarchical work experiences. The
group may neglect or avoid evaluating their meetings whenever
time or tempers get short.
When conflicts arise, group members often avoid dealing with
them. Then as the process deteriorates, members are often too
afraid to resist manipulation or coercion. When they finally do
act, they often attack, belittle, or ostracize those who have erred.
In any group that cannot or will not meet these conditions, I
suggest they use another process:
(1) Voting — using a group process that is as cooperative as
possible, but may need to be as rigid as Robert’s Rules of Order.
(2) Collaborative Group and Manager in which everyone
discusses the issues, but if there is an unresolvable problem, the
manager makes the final decision. The manager, which could be
a steering group, can be chosen by election, rotation, seniority,
level of performance, level of dedication, or some other method.
This is the process now used by many enlightened businesses
and some social change groups.
(3) Benign Charismatic Leader in which an inspiring person
tells members what to do. If they don’t like it, they leave. There
are a few sterling people out there who really might make good
benign dictators. A steering committee can also serve in this
role.
(4) Federation in which people work together as much as
they can, but go their own ways whenever there is disagreement.
* See for example, Allen Smith, “The Hidden Dynamics of
Consensus: Drawing Members in or Shutting Them Out?” The
Nonviolent Activist, War Resisters League, New York, January-
February 1990. I originally wrote this paper as a response to
Smith’s article.
There are many good articles and books on meeting process. I
suggest:
The “Consensus Corner” columns of Dec. 1982, Jan. 1983,
April 1983, July 1983, and August 1983 in The Peacemaker,
P.O. Box 627, Garberville, CA 95440.
Michael Doyle and David Straus, How to Make Meetings
Work: The New Interaction Method, Berkeley Publishing
Group, New York, 1976.
John Gastil, Democracy in Small Groups, New Society Publishers,
Philadelphia, 1993.
Brian Auvine, et al., A Manual for Group Facilitators, Center
for Conflict Resolution, 1977 (available from New Society
Publishers).
Virginia Coover, Ellen Deacon, Charles Esser, and Christopher
Moore, Resource Manual for a Living Revolution, New
Society Publishers, Philadelphia, 1977.
Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating
Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Books, New York,
1981.
Joreen (Jo Freeman), “The Tyranny of Structurelessness,” found
in Anne Koedt, ed., Radical Feminism, Quadrangle Books,
New York, 1973.
Irving Janis, Groupthink, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, 1982.
— Prepared by Randy Schutt, P.O. Box 608867, Cleveland,
OH 44108 . OK to copy for noncommercial
purposes.
My Background: I have worked with the Abalone Alliance,
the Center for Economic Conversion, Livermore Action Group,
the Pacific Studies Center, Agape Foundation, and Ruckus
Society.
ASmithResponse-3.3W RDS 8-10-01
---------------------------
Back to Collective Book Links Page
Back to Collective Book Home Page