33

CHAPTER 3

What Are the Basic Steps?

There are many approaches to consensus decision making, some more complex than others. The following five-step model works well for most decisions.

Step One: Define the Issue

The group first explores the issue or problem it is attempting to address. This phase often involves presentations of related history and background facts. The group’s goal during this phase is to develop an informed, shared understanding of the issue and the facts surrounding the issue.

During each step of the consensus process you will find that thoughtful questions can do a lot of the “heavy lifting” for group members. These questions will help the group clearly define the issue:

34

THE CONSENSUS PROCESS

• Why is this issue important and what exactly is at stake?
• What are the historical, background, and important facts?
• Do we have a common understanding of the facts?
• How is this issue currently affecting our organization?
• What might be the root causes and/or contributing factors?
• What don’t we know about this issue?
• If nothing changes, what is likely to happen?
• Can we agree on a common statement of the issue or problem?
• Can we state this issue as a “how do we . . . ?” question?

35

Step Two: Establish Decision Criteria

This is one of the most commonly overlooked steps in consensus decision-making. The more explicit and specific you can be about decision criteria, the easier it is to shape solutions upon which the group can agree.

During this step, the group discusses requirements that any proposal must meet and outcomes that any proposal must achieve. We call these must criteria.

Additionally, the group can identify criteria that, while not essential, are desirable. We refer to these criteria as wants.

Must criteria are also known as deal-breaker criteria because the group will not adopt any proposal that does not meet these criteria. In contrast, want criteria are negotiable and cannot be the basis of legitimate opposition.

It is important that decision criteria are articulated clearly and concisely. The following questions will help the group develop its criteria.

• What conditions must be met for this issue to be resolved?
• What do we really want to achieve relative to resolving this issue?
• What shared/organizational interests and needs must be met?
• What resource limitations and/or requirements must be met?
• What shared concerns will a solution need to address?
• What side effects need to be avoided?

36

WHEN “MUST” CRITERIA ARE IGNORED

A nationwide industry association needed to determine where it would hold its annual trade show. The group developed a set of “must” criteria based on extensive surveying of attendee needs. When it came time to select the city, a coalition of members made an emotional plea for loyalty to a particular city, which had been the historical site of the event. Despite the fact that this city met very few of the group’s pre-established “must” criteria, it was chosen to be the site of the trade show. In this case, the decision-making group was convinced by a few members to make its decision based on something other than the criteria established through extensive research and deliberation. The decision was disconnected from what had been defined as “the best interests of the organization and its stakeholders.”

One board member described the impact of ignoring the decision criteria in this way:

“We made this decision based on emotion rather than on what made sense. Now we are paying the price. Our ability to achieve the organization’s goals continues to be limited by our choice of locations.”

Step Three: Craft the Proposal

As indicated by the flow chart at the beginning of this chapter, consensus is an iterative process of crafting an initial proposal and then refining or sometimes replacing that proposal to address legitimate concerns of group members.

Drafting a Preliminary Proposal

An initial written proposal is usually drafted after criteria are defined and agreed upon. This can be done by the entire group or by a designated member or subgroup. Putting together a preliminary proposal may take some time and creativity. It often involves consulting with people with a stake in the decision about alternative solutions, testing ideas, hearing concerns, and conducting research.

37

The time invested in this step is well spent. A well-articulated preliminary proposal focuses the group’s discussion without necessarily advocating endorsement of the proposal.

Building Group Ownership

Avoid attributing authorship of the initial proposal. This enables the group to assume ownership of the ideas in the proposal as “our work in progress.” As changes are suggested and subsequent proposals are developed, continue to avoid crediting authorship to individuals or subgroups.

Pose the following questions to assist the group in crafting its initial proposals.

• What ideas do people have about solutions that would meet our criteria?
• What do these alternative ideas share in common?
• Can any of these ideas be combined?
• Can we make this solution simpler, less expensive, and/or faster to implement?
• What options haven’t we explored?

Asking Clarifying Questions

Once the proposal has been developed, it is presented to the group. During the presentation, limit discussion to clarifying questions. The following clarifying questions seek to confirm understanding of the proposal and make any assumptions explicit:

• What would help you better understand this proposal?
• What isn’t clear to you?
• What would enable you to explain this proposal to someone outside of this group?
• What are the stated and unstated assumptions of this proposal?
• Do we have a shared common understanding of the proposal?

38

Step Four: Test for Consensus

This is the most critical step of the consensus process and the one that requires the most skill. Once a proposal has been presented to the group and all clarifying questions have been answered, it is time to test for consensus. Testing for consensus involves asking every member of the group to state his or her level of comfort with and support for the proposal, based on the shared goals and criteria the group established during Step 2 (Chapter 4 is dedicated to this step in the process). During Step 4, it is important to be clear that you are asking group members to weigh in on the specific proposal.

You are NOT asking

• Is this your first choice?
• Does this meet your personal needs and interests?

You ARE asking

• Is this a proposal with which you can live and ultimately support?
• Does it meet the shared criteria for the group?
• Do you believe this proposal represents the group’s best thinking at this time?
• Is this the best decision for our organization and its stakeholders?

In asking people to weigh in on their level of comfort and support for a proposal, there are several possible outcomes.

Scenario 1. Every member of the group feels comfortable and supportive of the proposal. No one raises concerns or opposition. Consensus is reached relatively quickly.

39

Scenario 2. Some members of the group support the proposal. Other members have concerns or questions. Over the course of discussion, the group refines the proposal and provides information in ways that allow concerned members to support the proposal. Consensus is reached.

Scenario 3. In addition to concerns, some members oppose the proposal based on their sense either that it cannot fulfill one of the agreed-upon must criteria or that it somehow violates the organization’s purpose or goals. This type of legitimate opposition, also known as a block, can trigger creative discussion in which the group searches for new solutions. If a new solution is found that addresses all member concerns, consensus is reached. (See Chapter 4 for more on dealing with legitimate blocks.)

Scenario 4. Sometimes a group is unable to find a way to address concerns and/or opposition. If the group cannot formulate a proposal that every member can support, consensus agreement is not reached.

Step Five: Reach Agreement

Consensus is achieved when every member of the group indicates that they believe the proposal represents the best thinking of the group at this time and that it addresses all legitimate concerns raised.

In doing a final check for consensus, it is useful to restate the proposed decision and ask each member of the group:

Are you comfortable that this decision is the best decision for the organization and its stakeholders at this time, and are you prepared to support its implementation?

40

Formalizing the Consensus Agreement

Once a consensus decision is made and a written record of the decision completed, I like to have group members sign the final proposal or decision report. The signature is a formal way for members to indicate their intentions to actively support implementation.

SAMPLE DECISION STATEMENT

On March 31, 2006, the Yummy Muffin Marketing Task Force (comprised of executives from corporate marketing and our largest franchise owners) reached consensus on the selection of an advertising agency that will handle our national marketing campaign. After an exhaustive search and a competition among four national agencies, we selected Boll Creative based on the following criteria:

• Creative capability as demonstrated in the television and print competition
• Capacity to create an integrated campaign using television, radio, print, and direct mail
• Understanding of our industry and its consumers
• Experience in negotiating competitive media buys
• Competitive pricing of the proposal relative to others considered
• Stability and track record of the agency

As a result of this decision, the members of the Marketing Task Force are fully committed to moving forward with Boll Creative.

When Groups Cannot Reach Consensus

There will be times when a group cannot find a way to address concerns or resolve a legitimate block in the time it has to make a decision. This is a completely reasonable way for a consensus process to end. However, when consensus cannot be reached, alternatives do exist. These alternatives are also known as fallbacks. Although it is useful to have a fallback position identified in advance, it is my experience that given enough time and the right intention, consensus can be reached most of the time. That said, here is a brief description of some alternatives to use when consensus is not possible.

41

Defer the Decision. If there is not an urgent need to reach a decision, a group may decide simply to defer the decision until circumstances change or new information is brought to light.

Since the homeowners’ association could not reach consensus on whether to build a swimming pool, the membership decided to defer the decision and take it up again next year.

Give Decision Authority to a Subgroup. The group may determine in advance that if the larger group is unable to reach consensus, the final decision will be delegated to a smaller subgroup.

The members of the homeowners’ association designated a five-member group to make a final decision about the pool based on the criteria and guidelines provided by the larger membership.

Push the Decision Upward. In hierarchical organizations, a decision may be pushed up to an individual manager or executive group. A full summary of the alternatives considered, proposals, concerns, and reason for any opposition are provided to the decision makers who may or may not have been involved in the group’s deliberations.

The homeowners’ association empowered its three-member Executive Board to make a final decision between two attractive options that had been developed.

Seek Mediation. If some members are holding out for legitimate reasons, it is sometimes useful to employ a trained mediator to work specifically with those group members who hold differences. Mediation is a structured process through which individuals are encouraged to air their views and work toward resolution of differences. A mediator is particularly useful when emotions are running high and individuals are not feeling that their perspective is being heard. Like group facilitators, mediators never take a position on the topic under dispute. According to the Mediation Network of North Carolina, the mediator works to:

• Facilitate communication among the parties
• Help them explore mutual understanding
• Assist them in defining and clarifying issues
• Maximize the exploration of alternatives
• Assist in exploring reconciliation and settlement

42

Example: The homeowners whose house would be adjacent to the swimming pool were vehemently opposed to the idea. All other members were in favor. The group called in a mediator to ensure that the opposing members’ perspective was fully heard and to explore whether those concerns could somehow be addressed.

At its most basic, the consensus process entails defining the issue, developing decision criteria, crafting a proposal, testing for consensus, and reaching agreement or an alternative conclusion. The next chapter addresses a common occurrence in consensus decision-making—a cycle of disagreement and discovery that can produce frustration or innovative solutions.