61

CHAPTER 6

Ten Tips for Better Consensus Meetings

Every group facilitator has a favorite set of tools and techniques for helping people collaborate effectively. Here are ten tips I believe are most useful in consensus-based decision processes.

When and how you use these suggestions should be informed by your own style and intuition. For example, I can’t tell you exactly when to use silence or a meeting break as an intervention. This is a judgment you will gain through your own experience and experimentation. Additionally, these tips are not intended to be formulas or templates. In fact, I encourage you to modify them so that they become authentic expressions of your own unique approach to facilitation.

62

Set Clear Ground Rules

Ground rules are shared agreements about acceptable group member behavior. In fact, this is often the first consensus-based decision a group is asked to make. Ground rules create a collective standard for behavior and therefore enable the facilitator or other group members to intervene when they are not being followed. Each group should create its own ground rules so that group members feel a sense of ownership and commitment to them.

SAMPLE CONSENSUS GROUND RULES

• Share ideas openly and succinctly.
• Listen openly to ideas, concerns, and criticism from others.
• Express disagreement and concerns constructively.
• Avoid arguing for my own position or idea.
• Decide based on what is best for the organization.
• Look for common ground solutions by asking “what if” questions.
• Consent only when a proposal makes sense to me.
• Withdraw concerns as they are addressed.
• Ask questions to uncover important information and assumptions.
• Actively encourage others to speak.
• Accept criticism and disagreement as a constructive source of input.
• Pause to reflect on what has been said before sharing ideas.
• Avoid repeating what has already been said.
• Do not agree just to avoid conflict.
• Encourage thorough discussion and dissent.

Use a “Group Memory”

Designate a scribe or recorder to take notes on a flip chart. Whenever possible, ask a neutral party (e.g., someone who is not involved in the decision) to play this role. The recorder takes notes on a flip chart or some other medium that is visible to all group members. As the discussion evolves, members can refer to the record to confirm what has been said and agreed upon.

63

A group memory is particularly useful when developing decision criteria, listing concerns, categorizing ideas, and refining proposals. Make sure that the person taking notes limits the amount of paraphrasing and checks in with group members to confirm accuracy.

Before any final consensus decision, a written version of the proposal should be presented so that group members can review the specific language. After meetings, the recorder transcribes the notes and distributes them as meeting minutes.

Distinguish “Must” from “Want” Criteria

As the group identifies the criteria upon which it will evaluate any proposals (see page 35 for a description of this step in the process), it is important that a distinction be made between must and want criteria. As a reminder, must criteria, also known as “deal-breakers,” are standards that the proposal must meet to be adopted by the group. Want criteria may be desirable but are not essential to a consensus decision. Additionally, some want criteria are more important than others. In some cases, it is useful to designate high, medium, and low importance to each want criteria.

Use Silence and Pauses

There are very useful ways to employ silence as a tool in consensus building. First, build in a group norm of pausing for 15 to 30 seconds after each person speaks. A short yet significant pause provides participants the opportunity to reflect on what has been said and decide what they think about an idea that has been shared. This practice decreases the prevalence of shoot-from-the-hip responses and interruptions. It creates a more respectful environment in which ideas are fully considered.

64

A second way to use silence is to suggest a prolonged period (5 to 15 minutes) of quiet reflection after a presentation or discussion. This is a particularly effective intervention when the discussion seems to have hit a dead-end or members are becoming otherwise frustrated. Extended silence is different from a break because you are specifically asking people to “work individually” on the problem at hand. Before suggesting a prolonged pause, it is useful to summarize where the discussion is at and provide clear questions on which participants can reflect.

Here’s a summary of the current proposal. The concerns identified are . . . and the suggestions provided thus far for addressing those concerns are . . . I’d like to suggest that we take 10 minutes to individually reflect on this question (written on a flip chart): What modified or entirely new proposal will address the remaining concerns? If it’s helpful, please feel free to take notes as you think about this question on your own.

Assign Questions and Tasks to Breakout Groups

With groups of more than ten people, it is useful at times to split the group into triads or small groups. Define a question or task, and ask each group to work on theirs and present their work to the larger group.

Breakout groups often produce a greater diversity of ideas since there is less opportunity for “group think” to develop. Another advantage of breakout groups is that they enable people who do not feel comfortable speaking in the larger group to participate.

65

Put the Discussion in a Fishbowl

In larger groups it is often difficult to hear opinions from every member on every issue. Fishbowl discussions enable different viewpoints to be discussed and debated while others listen and reflect on what is being said. The facilitator selects four or five group members who represent different perspectives on a question (e.g., What should our decision criteria include?). These members are then asked to discuss the question from their perspective as the rest of the group observes the discussion.

In some versions of fishbowls, members from the outer (observer) circle can tap inside circle members on the shoulder as a signal that they would like to rotate into the fishbowl and express a perspective that has not yet been stated.

At the conclusion of the fishbowl discussion, all members of the group discuss what they have heard and identify the most important insights and ideas. This technique is particularly useful for simultaneously exploring an issue in depth while enabling other group members to critically consider what is said.

Stack Participants

When several members want to speak at the same time, this is a useful method for bringing order to the conversation. Stacking simply involves assigning an order to who will speak next.

OK, I can see that several people want to speak on this topic. Let’s go around the table and create a sequence. John, why don’t you speak first? Then let’s hear from Frank, Samantha, and Linda, in that order. Does anyone else want to be included in this round of comments? Just let me know and we will put you into the mix.”

66

As the facilitator, remain neutral with regard to whom you select to speak and where you place them in the sequence of speakers. Call on people by alternating between ends of the conference table or corners of the room so that your neutrality is transparent to others.

Stacking reassures participants that they will have an opportunity to speak and enables them to focus on what others are saying rather than spending their energy looking for an opening to speak. However, stacking can also be too structured when a conversation calls for more fluid give and take on a particular topic.

Take a Break

There have been dozens of times when I have worked with a group that had reached a critical impasse. The group was struggling to refine its proposal in a way that resolved important concerns or overcame strong sources of opposition. In such moments, people are usually feeling fatigued, patience is running short, and some folks may be feeling resentful of those people who cannot support the proposal. In these moments, I have found that the best thing I can do for the group is to call for a 10- or 15-minute break. In addition to providing people with an opportunity to stretch their legs, use the restroom, and get refreshments, this timeout serves to relieve some of the accumulated tension in the room.

Breaks also give people a chance to connect with one another on a personal level. These more intimate conversations often mitigate interpersonal differences and build bridges that enable a group to get to consensus more quickly.

67

Use Technology Wisely

Tools like e-mail, online surveys, real-time text messaging, and blogs have become a way of life in an age of high technology. With geographically dispersed teams and global organizations on the rise, technology makes it possible for us to share ideas and make decisions together even though we are not in the same room. These tools enable us to deliberate and decide across time zones, physical distances, and even languages.

While exchanging ideas via text can create a sense of neatness, precision, and objectivity, some important elements can get lost in the transmission—emotion, relationship, shared understanding, ownership, and a willingness to be influenced by others. These key ingredients for high commitment decisions are especially vulnerable when using text-based technology and need to be safeguarded. When considering the use of technology in a consensus decision process, consider the following questions:

At this stage of the process, will the use of a particular technology enhance or inhibit

• people’s opportunity to be heard and equally influence the process?
• the expression of important nuances and emotions associated with the issue?
• the use of disagreement as a positive force and a source for creative thinking?
• a decision that serves the interests and needs of the whole group?

My recommendation: When a group needs to make a high-stakes decision, try to make it via simultaneous face-to-face, eye-to-eye, voice-to-voice communication. When gathering all of the decision makers in the same room is not possible, I favor phone or video conferencing. Here are some dos and don’ts for the use of technology when real-time personal communication is not possible.

68

Evaluate the Meeting

The way that groups improve their ability to make consensus decisions is with practice and reflection. Plan a 10-minute segment at the conclusion of the meeting to discuss how the process went. This is an opportunity for group members to comment on what they are observing and learning. Participants will typically raise issues and questions related to meeting process, behavior of group members, tone of the meeting, and level of satisfaction with the outcomes.

The meeting evaluation is not a time to revisit any of the substantive decisions or topics covered during the meeting. An effective evaluation will help participants identify what went right and think about how to improve those things that did not go well for the next meeting. At the conclusion of the evaluation discussion, the facilitator should summarize what has been said and help the group translate those insights into commitments for future meetings.

SAMPLE DECISION PROCESS EVALUATION

• What were the most satisfying outcomes of this meeting?
• What was least satisfying?
• Thinking about the way we approached shared decision making, what did we do well?
• What could we improve upon and how?
• What commitments can we make for improving the way we make decisions together?

The tips offered in this chapter are useful steps you can take to ensure that group meetings do not get bogged down or sidetracked. Taking time to complete an evaluation at your final meeting gives members an opportunity to identify where improvements could be made. The following chapter returns to the roots of consensus and shares a more personal perspective on the effective use of this decision-making process.