Formal consensus refers to a specific organizational structure which formalizes both the relationships between members of an organization and the processes through which they interact to create an environment in which consensus decision-making can occur in a specific, consistent, and efficient manner. While many diverse consensus decision-making techniques exist, formal consensus emphasizes the concept that the particular process by which a decision is made is equally significant to gaining consensus as the content of any proposal or discussion.
Formal consensus is designed to structurally identify and isolate issues regarding the process by which interactions occur, to prevent these issues from interfering with the content of any particular interaction. This is accomplished through dedicating time and effort to developing (by consensus) a procedural structure for any discussion prior to beginning the actual discussion. A common example of this is seen in the relationship between agenda planning meetings and content meetings; the purpose of the agenda planning meeting is to establish an exact agenda for the content meeting, outlining not only which topics will be discussed, but who will lead the discussion, what other roles are needed in the discussion, how long the discussion should take, whether or not a decision is needed, and how any decisions should be reached. Once a detailed structural process has been established, those involved in the content meeting will enjoy greater freedom to engage in the material being discussed, as well as greater efficiency in achieving consensus.
The concept of formulating specific and consistent procedural structures must begin at the very foundation of an organization, if formal consensus is to be successfully implemented. Organizations intending to use formal consensus must establish the fundamental principles, values, and goals that all the members of the organization have in common. Once this is established, any conflicts which arise based on basic principles can always refer back to the agreed-upon set of common values. It is only after this foundational agreement has been achieved that particular structures and relationships can be developed through consensus decision-making. Clearly, the exact implementation of formal consensus will vary from one organization to the next, based on the needs, goals, values, and resources of the organization. However, the basic concept remains: once a specific and consistent procedural structure is developed, from the most basic level upward, all subsequent decision-making processes will be both efficient and predictable, which will provide known opportunities for even those who feel less empowered to participate in the decision-making process.
It is important to note that formal consensus aims to apply this process-content distinction to all types of organizational interaction. Decision making is one particular type of interaction, but these structural concepts can also be applied to meeting management, facilitation of discussion, and conflict resolution.
Advantages and disadvantages
The main advantage of formal consensus over more traditional decision-making practices is that it diminishes the competitive dynamic which is integral to all majority rule systems. Formal consensus emphasizes universal participation through inclusive, open, and transparent procedures which encourage cooperative resolution to conflicts, rather than aggressive competition to achieve the highest number of votes.
The predictable and consistent structure which formal consensus provides allows for easier participation, even from those participants who would otherwise feel marginalized or disempowered.
Additionally, the consensus decision making process implies that once a proposal is accepted, it has been modified to suit the needs of all members of an organization. By default, any proposal which is accepted has the support of the entire organization, and any dissent is already public knowledge. This type of decision making process allows for the most direct, efficient implementation of any given proposal.[original research?]
A disadvantage to the formal consensus model is that participation requires a deep, common understanding of the underlying agreements which form the structure and process through which decisions are made. On account of this need, it may be difficult for new people to enter an existing organization and participate to their full capacity.
Structure of formal consensus
The general structure of a decision reached by formal consensus should resemble the following:
Introduction
When a proposal or issue is raised, it should be submitted to the group, and sufficient time should be given for all participants to familiarize themselves with the proposal. The process by which the proposal / issue originated should be clarified, and any clarifying questions should be addressed.
First level of discussion
Once the proposal is understood by all participants, a broad discussion of the overall merits and drawbacks of the proposal should take place. None of the conflicts or concerns that are raised at this phase are directly addressed, and no questions are directly resolved. Instead, all comments are noted, and the discussion is made to move forward without dwelling on particular concerns. Some proposals can be accepted or rejected at this stage. It is appropriate to call for consensus here.
Second level of discussion
Specific concerns and conflicts which came from the general discussion of the proposal are identified. No attempt is made to resolve these concerns, but instead, all of the specific conflicts and concerns which require discussion are identified and formulated into specific points.
Third level of discussion
The specific conflicts identified in the second level are discussed, one at a time. Each concern is discussed until a resolution is achieved.
There are alternative means of resolving a discussion which cannot achieve consensus, which include sending the proposal to a committee, or conducting a super-majority vote.
Roles
Roles are central to the formal consensus model, but it is important to understand that each role is a function of the process of a meeting, and not a function of the content. Not all roles are needed at every meeting, and when appropriate, more than one role can be held by the same individual.
Agenda planners
Prior to any meeting, an agenda planning meeting should first be conducted by a small group of agenda planners. The tasks which agenda planners must carry out include collecting agenda items, arranging items into a comprehensive agenda, assigning presenters for each topic, determining the discussion techniques to be employed, assigning time limits to each topic, and finally drafting a written version of the finalized agenda. Decisions on each of these tasks should be achieved through consensus.
Facilitator
A facilitator is an individual responsible for ensuring that a meeting flows smoothly, and that discussion is facile. The facilitator is responsible for moving through the agenda in the time determined by the agenda planners. In being responsible for this, the facilitator must guide the process of the discussion and suggest techniques for resolving conflicts which arise. However, the facilitator is only responsible for providing direction on the process of the meeting, and should not participate in the content of the discussions.
Timekeeper
This is the individual responsible for assisting the facilitator in maintaining the pre-determined time limitations for each discussion.
Public scribe
The scribe also assists the facilitator, by putting major discussion points or concerns immediately relevant to the topic at hand in writing for the entire group to see. This role is helpful in allowing the group to visually keep track of points that have been raised.
Note Taker
This individual is responsible for developing and distributing a detailed written record of any given meeting. These notes are useful in allowing absent members to maintain their participation in ongoing discussions, as well as for future reference.
Doorkeeper
The doorkeeper is responsible for informing all participants who enter a meeting of all pertinent information, distributing relevant literature (agenda, etc.), and briefly informing latecomers of what topics have been covered.
Scale
The importance of structural agreements and formalized process become more critical as the group of participants increases. A small organization may be able to afford more flexibility in their process, but a group of several hundred or several thousand participants requires a strict procedural structure to ensure that equal opportunity is given for everyone to voice their opinion.
It is possible for a formal consensus model to be employed for decision-making bodies of up to 100,000 participants.[citation needed] However, this requires that much smaller groups be formed, so that real discussion is made possible. Ideally, each individual would be able to discuss topics and proposals among an “affinity group" of 5 or 6 people, and each affinity group would then be able to participate in larger-scale discussions by way of a representative.
Examples
The following list includes some organizations which have adopted the formal consensus model:
Mediation is a structured, interactive process where an impartial third party neutral assists disputing parties in resolving conflict through the use of specialized communication and negotiation techniques. All participants in mediation are encouraged to actively participate in the process. Mediation is a "party-centered" process in that it is focused primarily upon the needs, rights, and interests of the parties. The mediator uses a wide variety of techniques to guide the process in a constructive direction and to help the parties find their optimal solution. A mediator is facilitative in that she/he manages the interaction between parties and facilitates open communication. Mediation is also evaluative in that the mediator analyzes issues and relevant norms ("reality-testing"), while refraining from providing prescriptive advice to the parties.
Consensus decision-making or consensus process are group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all. The focus on establishing agreement of at least the majority or the supermajority and avoiding unproductive opinion differentiates consensus from unanimity, which requires all participants to support a decision.
Consensus democracy, consensus politics or consensualism is the application of consensus decision-making to the process of legislation in a democracy. It is characterized by a decision-making structure that involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities. The latter systems are classified as majoritarian democracy.
A meeting is when two or more people come together to discuss one or more topics, often in a formal or business setting, but meetings also occur in a variety of other environments. Meetings can be used as form of group decision making.
Facilitation in business, organizational development (OD) and consensus decision-making refers to the process of designing and running a meeting according to a previously agreed set of requirements.
An affinity group is a group formed around a shared interest or common goal, to which individuals formally or informally belong. Affinity groups are generally precluded from being under the aegis of any governmental agency, and their purposes must be primarily non-commercial. Examples of affinity groups include private social clubs, fraternities, writing or reading circles, hobby clubs, and groups engaged in political activism.
An electronic meeting system (EMS) is a type of computer software that facilitates creative problem solving and decision-making of groups within or across organizations. The term was coined by Alan R. Dennis et al. in 1988. The term is synonymous with group support systems (GSS) and essentially synonymous with group decision support systems (GDSS). Electronic meeting systems form a class of applications for computer supported cooperative work.
Consensus-seeking decision-making is a term sometimes used to describe a formal decision process similar to the decision-making variant known as "formal consensus" but with the additional option of a fallback voting procedure if consensus appears unattainable during the consensus-seeking phase of the deliberations.
A deliberative opinion poll, sometimes called a deliberative poll, is a form of opinion poll that incorporates the principles of deliberative democracy. Professor James S. Fishkin of Stanford University first described the concept in 1988. The typical deliberative opinion poll takes a random, representative sample of citizens and engages them in deliberation on current issues or proposed policy changes through small-group discussions and conversations with competing experts to create more informed and reflective public opinion. A typical polling utilizes participants drawn from a random and representative sample to engage in small-group deliberations to create more informed and reflective public opinion. Deliberative polls have been tested around the world, including in the European Union, the United States, China, and Australia.
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistakeholder governance group for policy dialogue on issues of Internet governance. It brings together all stakeholders in the Internet governance debate, whether they represent governments, the private sector or civil society, including the technical and academic community, on an equal basis and through an open and inclusive process. The establishment of the IGF was formally announced by the United Nations Secretary-General in July 2006. It was first convened in October–November 2006 and has held an annual meeting since then.
The WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 was a meeting of the World Trade Organization, convened at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Washington, USA, over the course of three days, beginning Tuesday, 30 November 1999. A week before the meeting, delegates admitted failure to agree on the agenda and the presence of deep disagreements with developing countries. Intended as the launch of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations that would have been called "The Millennium Round", the negotiations were marred by poor organization and controversial management of large street protests. Developing country representatives became resentful and uncooperative on being excluded from talks as the United States and the European Union attempted to cement a mutual deal on agriculture. The negotiations collapsed and were reconvened in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001. The Doha venue enabled on-site public protest to be excluded. Necessary agenda concessions were made to include the interests of developing countries, which had by then further established their own negotiation blocs, such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation. Thus, the current round is called the Doha Development Round, which has since 2008 remained stalled as a result of diverging perspectives regarding tariffs, agriculture, and non-tariff barriers such as agricultural subsidies.
Joint application design (JAD) is a process used in the life cycle area of the dynamic systems development method (DSDM) to collect business requirements while developing new information systems for a company. "The JAD process also includes approaches for enhancing user participation, expediting development, and improving the quality of specifications." It consists of a workshop where "knowledge workers and IT specialists meet, sometimes for several days, to define and review the business requirements for the system." The attendees include high level management officials who will ensure the product provides the needed reports and information at the end. This acts as "a management process which allows Corporate Information Services (IS) departments to work more effectively with users in a shorter time frame".
A facilitator is a person who helps a group of people to work together better, understand their common objectives, and plan how to achieve these objectives, during meetings or discussions. In doing so, the facilitator remains "neutral", meaning they do not take a particular position in the discussion. Some facilitator tools will try to assist the group in achieving a consensus on any disagreements that preexist or emerge in the meeting so that it has a solid basis for future action.
The nominal group technique…. (NGT) is a group process involving problem identification, solution generation, and decision making. It can be used in groups of many sizes, who want to make their decision quickly, as by a vote, but want everyone's opinions taken into account. The method of tallying is the difference. First, every member of the group gives their view of the solution, with a short explanation. Then, duplicate solutions are eliminated from the list of all solutions, and the members proceed to rank the solutions, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on.
Interactive planning is a concept developed by Russell L. Ackoff, an American theorist, early proponent of the field of operations research and recognized as the pioneer in systems thinking. Interactive planning forwards the idea that in order to arrive at a desirable future, one has to create a desirable present and create ways and means to resemble it. One of its unique features is that development should be ideal-oriented. Interactive planning is unlike other types of planning such as reactive planning, inactive planning, and preactive planning.
Participative decision-making (PDM) is the extent to which employers allow or encourage employees to share or participate in organizational decision-making. According to Cotton et al., the format of PDM could be formal or informal. In addition, the degree of participation could range from zero to 100% in different participative management (PM) stages.
A working group, or working party, is a group of experts working together to achieve specified goals. The groups are domain-specific and focus on discussion or activity around a specific subject area. The term can sometimes refer to an interdisciplinary collaboration of researchers working on new activities that would be difficult to sustain under traditional funding mechanisms.
A citizens' assembly is a randomly-selected group of people who deliberate on important public questions.
Knowledge-Based Decision-Making (KBDM) in management is a decision-making process that uses predetermined criteria to measure and ensure the optimal outcome for a specific topic.
The garbage can model describes the chaotic reality of organizational decision making in an organized anarchy. The model originated in the 1972 seminal paper, A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice, written by Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
