Participatory Decision Making

David Graeber's Democracy Project (2013) is based on the ideas that everyone affected by a decision should have an equal chance to influence it and that no one should be bound by something he or she cannot accept. This technique puts these ideas into practice.

Purposes

• To develop a deeper, more appreciative understanding of reaching consensus
• To strive to reach a decision in which everyone involved feels his or her viewpoint and concerns have been heard and responded to
• To practice developing the ground rules of consensus decision making

How It Works

• The facilitator starts by establishing some basic principles that parallel Graeber's (2013) ideas for moving toward consensus:
  1. Principle 1: Anyone who wants to weigh in with a point of view about a proposal or course of action must have the opportunity to be heard.
  2. Principle 2: Anyone with objections or concerns about a proposal should have a legitimate chance to influence the outcome in some way.
  3. Principle 3: Anyone who wishes to veto or block a proposal because it violates a vital principle should have his or her concerns used to reformulate the proposal.
  4. Principle 4: No one should be required to go along with a proposal he or she regards as unacceptable.
• Someone proposes a particular decision or course of action that he or she feels will address a problem.
• Clarifying questions are invited to ensure everyone understands the proposal.
• Facilitators ask participants to register concerns including (1) friendly amendments, (2) temperature checks to capture a group's attitude about a specific proposal, and (3) suggestions for revision such as combining it with other proposals or eliminating it altogether.
• Facilitators invite “stand-asides”—objections that are not so strong as to block the proposal but that offer clues about some of its possible weaknesses.
• They then ask for “blocks”—something that can stop a proposal in its tracks or lead to further discussion and possible compromise. If there are no blocks and stand-asides are minimal, that may be sufficient to regard it as acceptable.
• A vote may also be taken in which the vote of a super-majority—say 70 percent of the whole—passes the proposal. At the height of the Occupy Movement, this figure was raised to 90 percent of the whole when such votes were found necessary or expedient.

An Abridged Version

It is also possible to try out this process in a greatly abridged form:

• In decision-making discussions facilitators propose a rule that no comment can be made at any time that does not explicitly refer back to and build on a previous speaker's comment.
• Facilitators take clarifying questions about the issue to be addressed.
• Concerns are raised along with possible moves to revise or even eliminate the proposal.
• The facilitator asks for stand-asides.
• The facilitator asks for blocks.
• The facilitator asks everyone to show his or her level of support—five fingers for strong support, one finger for stand-aside, fist for block.
• A decision is made based on a sense of the whole or a formal vote requiring a 70 percent super-majority.
• Participants debrief the experience of making decisions by a consensus process.

Where and When It Works Well

1. Community groups. In grassroots groups or town hall meetings this is less legalistic than, say, Robert's Rules of Order.
2. In hierarchical organizational and academic settings. This is often an eye-opener for those who think working for consensus invites chaos. They are surprised by its structure and ability to accommodate a wide range of differing opinions.

What Users Appreciate

1. Being clear and inclusive. People appreciate the emphasis on carefully framing, refining, and vetting proposals before they are brought to a vote.
2. Honoring every voice. This enables every person to contribute to decision making but also acknowledges objections (stand-asides and blocks) even while working to reach wide agreement.

What to Watch Out For

1. Make and good ground rule proposal. The first step in making a consensus process real is to try out a proposal that will honestly affect how people interact in a meaningful discussion. One might be that no one can speak in a meeting or discussion unless he or she refers to and builds on a previous speaker's comment. Others could be that no contribution exceeds one minute or that every speaker contributes at least once during each workshop or class session.
2. Frivolous blocks. Early on people may attempt a block because they dislike some aspect of a proposal. This should be allowed to go forward to see how the group grapples with this challenge, but watch out for blocks being used indiscriminately anytime someone has a minor objection. These should be reserved only for situations in which there is a very strong objection to the proposal.

Questions that Fit this Protocol

This is a technique for ensuring that the highest number of people participate in making a decision, so any question a community wishes to resolve is appropriate.