Consensus Decision Making

Giz Watson

Consensus is a form of cooperative, non-coercive decision making. The Greens, from their inception, have tried to follow this pathway in their development and implementation of policy. However, the process requires particular skills, frequent practise and is continually evolving. Thus regular evaluation, modification and training are required for adherents.

Most group decision making, including in other political parties, relies on voting. In a close outcome, say 51-49, the victors obviously feel satisfied with the decision, but nearly half of the group members are not, and may be tempted to 'white-ant the decision reached. On the other hand, consensus is an attempt to reach a decision ultimately acceptable to all group members, even though it may be different from any individuals opinion held at the beginning of the process. It is a process of arriving at a 'group decision, rather than a majority decision.

A starting point is that group members share similar beliefs and vision of eventual outcomes, such as the four pillars of The Greens in the present case, even though there may be a diversity of views about how to actually achieve those outcomes. Although group members may have strong views about particular issues, they need to come to group meetings with an open mind and be prepared to listen to and consider a range of views around any issue, whether their favourite issue or another. A key factor is to work on building trust among group members such that diverse opinions can be freely aired and rationally discussed. Throughout the process, it must be realized by all that the objective is not to affirm ones own opinion but arrive at a 'group decision acceptable to all, even though ones first preferences (in an ideal world) may not be met.

The consensus workshop on 21st September. Chris Johansen

A brief outline of the general process is as follows, although it must be emphasized that any group must evolve their own procedures and protocol, best suited to the particular nature and dynamics of that group:

• It is necessary to begin the discussion, whether on-line or at a meeting, with a clearly presented proposal, including its context and background. Otherwise much time can be lost by simply trying to clarify vague aspects of it. This information should be available to members well beforehand to allow them to do their 'homework before discussion commences.
• For meetings, the group sits in a circle, such that everyone can see everyone, and observe their body language as well as hearing what they are saying. This also promotes the feeling of equality among all.
• Face-to-face meetings need competent facilitation, whether by one or more members of the group in rotation, not to lead the discussion but to ensure productive input of all members towards a consensual outcome, preferably within the allocated time. A successful facilitator is not one who dominates the discussion but who, to an observer, appears to be in the background.
• Time limits are necessary, set according to experience of previous such discussions and the perceived contentiousness of the topic. If consensus is not possible within the time limit then the discussion would need to carry over to a future date. However, with good meeting practice, effective preparation and efficient facilitation it should be possible to allocate appropriate time for a topic.
• All group members must participate in the discussion, hopefully expressing their sincere opinions, even if different from those expressed by others. For those seemingly reluctant to speak, the facilitator should politely request their opinion.
• For difficult discussions, circuit breakers can be useful. These can be in the form of short breaks for refreshments, breakouts into several small groups or straw polls (to assess the extent to which opinions are trending towards consensus, or otherwise).
• Those with strong objections to the general trending of opinion towards consensus should really present alternatives that may bridge the gap. If not forthcoming the facilitator, and other group members should probe the basis of those objections in the hope of unlocking a compromise.
• Once agreement is reached it is necessary to clearly state the conclusion, preferably in writing, such that all members are clear on what they have agreed to.
• It is instructive to have 'post mortems of meetings to evaluate what went wrong, what went well, and how to do better next time.

Fishbowl exercise

After I gave a presentation outlining the consensus process, as summarized above, the group conducted a 'fishbowl exercise. This comprises half of the group forming an inner circle with the other half forming an outer circle. The inner group attempts to reach consensus on a provided topic while the outer group observes the process. Then the groups swap over with a new topic provided to the inner group and the outer group observes. The purpose is to demonstrate how groups reach consensus decisions and, by observation, critique the process – and thereby learn about consensus.

The first question (proposal) posed to the first inner circle was 'that at all Greens functions only vegetarian meals should be provided. Two different opinions immediately emerged. Members who were vegetarians felt that all such meals should be vegetarian as “vegetarians cannot eat meat but non-vegetarians can also eat vegetarian food”. The other opinion was that there should be freedom of choice, to cater for the preferences of all attendees. After extended discussion, consensus was reached that both veg and non-veg dishes should be on offer, but with rather reluctant compromise from the vegetarians.

The second proposal, for the second inner circle, was 'that Greens membership should have greater control over the activities of the MPs. Most members agreed that MPs were required to make instantaneous decisions on actions in parliament and it would be logistically impossible for members to influence these. They also agreed that elected members were chosen in the first place for their commitment to existing Greens policies and should have the freedom to reflect them in parliament, realizing that compromises with other parties are inevitable. However, it was also agreed that continuing feedback directly to MPs, on their recent actions, was necessary. Thus consensus on the above was readily reached.

In the subsequent evaluation of those exercises it was considered that consensus on the first question could have been reached sooner by more effective facilitation. However, more in-depth discussion to better accommodate the feelings of the vegetarians would have been useful. For the second question perhaps facilitation was a little too strong, thereby missing out on deeper exploration of this topic, such as the potential for use of social media to provide feedback to MPs around recent or current actions. This evaluation also illustrated to participants the value of 'post-mortems for consensus discussions.

Group feedback

The workshop then provided the opportunity for participants to relate their experiences in the use of consensus techniques from their Regional Group (RG) discussions, mainly with respect to handling of proposals from Representative Council. Following is a summary of the points raised:

• Most RGs now use Loomio for at least preliminary decision making. This does allow greater time for members to consider proposals and indicate their preference. However, consideration of proposals still remains rather shallow due to too few providing their reasons and/or alternatives and lack of face-to-face interaction. Thus a 'lowest common denominator approach results, whereby 'agree is indicated even though there may be unexpressed reservations.
• Previous reliance on discussion at RG meetings also tended towards a 'lowest common denominator result due to failure to do 'homework to familiarize with proposals beforehand, time pressures and reluctance to be 'the odd person out when indicating consensus or otherwise.
• Use of Loomio needs to be better combined with actual discussions at RG meetings.
• Some who do express an opinion contrary to the general flow have the feeling that they are considered to be 'obstructing the process. Strong facilitation is needed to explore the basis of contrary opinions, and seek possible compromises, remembering that a 'group decision is the ultimate goal.
• In most RGs only a small number of members are active in decision making, whether on Loomio or at RG meetings, whereas decisions really need to reflect the entire RG. Thus 'devils advocates among active members are important, to adequately explore the ramifications of any proposal, particular those that may be in the minds of non-active members.
• If group meetings seeking consensus seem too laboured and boring, then they are probably not being effectively conducted. Principles of 'good meeting and negotiating practice need to be followed, which require skilled facilitators and relatively skilled participants.
• There is a need for follow-up training sessions on consensus and good meeting practice at RG level. This has obvious application for use outside of Greens activities, such as in the workplace. It also has application in dealing with those with whom one generally does not agree with but would wish to reach an agreement on a specific issue.

In conclusion, practise of consensus at RG level is still evolving (e.g. the introduction of Loomio) and requires continuing training and internal evaluation to become more efficient and effective. This is particularly the case as more new members join the 'active group.

For more information on the practice of consensus within The Greens and elsewhere contact me at giz.watson.au@gmail.com