How to Reach a Consensus

from wikiHow - The How to Manual That You Can Edit

 Consensus is defined as “an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole” by the American Heritage Dictionary. But reaching that point is difficult and even understanding what a consensus is can be mind numbing. These instructions will guide you through the process of finding common ground and building a consensus.

Steps

1. Understand what a consensus is. There are five requirements of consensus decision-making:
   • Inclusion. As many community members as possible should be involved in the process. Nobody should be excluded or left out (unless they ask to be excluded).
   • Participation. Not only is every person included, but each and every person is also expected to participate by contributing opinions and suggestions. While there are various roles that others may have, each person has an equal share (and stake) in the final decision.
   • Co-operation. All the people involved collaborate and build upon each other’s concerns and suggestions to come up with a decision or solution that will satisfy everyone in the group, rather than just the majority (while the minority is ignored).
   • Egalitarianism. Nobody’s input is weighed more or less than anyone else’s. Each has equal opportunity to amend, veto, or block ideas.
   • Solution-mindedness. An effective decision-making body works towards a common solution, despite differences. This can come in the form of compromise, a better idea, or even dropping the potential issue completely.
2. Familiarize yourself with the arguments against using a consensus process. Many people feel and have been raised to feel that democratic voting (i.e. majority rules) is the proper solution to all decision making. This may create a win/lose situation that is less productive in the long run. Those who prefer voting often view the consensus model as inefficient and time-consuming. By understanding the resistance towards consensus building, you will be better able to address people’s concerns.
3. Emphasize the benefits of using a consensus process. While both the voting method of decision making and the consensus process of decision making are meant to promote discussion, the consensus process is more likely to result in all parties reaching common ground. Both sides of an issue may need to make concessions in order for the issue to move through the process. The end result, however, is a solution that everyone can be satisfied with. It may not be exactly what anyone wanted, but it gives everyone enough of what they want to be content and will ultimately improve group cohesion with a shared plan, vision or goal, rather than create factions or an “us against them” mentality.
4. Clearly outline what needs to be decided. You may need to add something or take something away. You may need to start something new or amend something current. Whatever it is, make sure that the entire issue is clearly stated for everyone to understand. It’s always a good idea to address why the issue is being raised in the first place (i.e. what is the problem that needs to be solved?). Briefly review the options that are available.
5. Test the waters. Before attempting a lengthy discussion, have the decision-makers vote.
   • If everyone agrees on a position, move on to taking action and implementing the decision.
   • If there is disagreement, discuss with the decision-makers the reasoning behind their votes. The consensus method requires that a solution be reached, if possible, by finding a middle ground between all parties. So a discussion may reveal that you can modify some aspects of your proposal to promote a solution.
6. Modify the proposal to address the concerns raised by objectors. This may include making some concessions of your own. Remember, if even one person disagrees with you, you are still obliged to discuss the issue further and not exclude the dissenter.
7. Identify when consensus has been reached. This can come in several forms based on the decision-making body. There are four commonly-identified types of consensus (excluding 100% consensus, which is always preferred). The type to be used by your group should be decided well in advance of any contentious proposal being brought before it for consensus-building.
   • One Dissenter (also called U-1, or Unanimity minus one) means that all participants support the decision except for one. The individual dissenter usually can’t block the decision, but may be able to prolong debate (like the infamous filibuster). Due to their skepticism of the decision, the lone dissenter makes a very good evaluator of the outcome of the decision because they can view it with a critical eye and spot negative consequences before others would.
   • Two Dissenters (U-2 or Unanimity minus two) also can’t block a decision, but they are more effective at prolonging debate and obtaining a third dissenter (in which case a decision usually can be blocked) if they agree on what is wrong with the proposal.
   • Three Dissenters (U-3 or Unanimity minus three), is recognized by most groups as enough to constitute non-consensus, but this can vary between decision-making bodies (especially if it is a small group).
   • Rough Consensus doesn’t specifically define “how much is enough”. The working group leader or even the group itself must decide when a consensus has been reached (although this can create additional disagreement when consensus cannot be reached about coming to a consensus). This places increased responsibility on the leader and can stir further debate if the leader’s judgment is questioned.
8. Implement the decision as quickly as possible and follow the decision to the letter. If any alteration is made to the decision after consensus, it must be reintroduced to the decision-making body for voting and consensus-reaching.

Tips

• Emphasize the role of the team in finding a solution to various issues together, not pitting stakeholders’ interests against each other.
• Some decision-makers may want to “stand aside”. This usually means the individual does NOT support the proposal being discussed, but will allow the decision to pass if necessary. Sometimes, however, a person chooses to stand aside simply because they don’t feel that they are knowledgeable enough about the subject to participate constructively.
• For a decision that will require a lengthy amount of time and many people, establish roles for the discussion. Make sure these people are responsible members of the group. Also, ensure that participants understand that these individuals are considered responsible members of the group and the suggestions are to be taken respectfully and seriously. The role-playing individuals have equal votes among the decision-makers, their vote counts no more or no less than anyone else. Here are a few roles that might help:
  • Facilitators make sure that the decision making process adheres to both the rules of consensus building (as described above) and a reasonable schedule. There can be more than one facilitator, and a facilitator can “resign” from their responsibility if they feel they’re becoming too personally involved with the decision.
  • Timekeepers keep their eye on the time. They let the facilitators and group know how much time is remaining and can help with steering the discussion back on track. A separate timekeeper is not always necessary, unless the facilitators are too busy moderating to keep checking the time.
  • Empaths gauge the “emotional climate” of the discussion to make sure that it doesn’t get out of hand. The goal is to anticipate emotional conflicts, prevent them or resolve them, and get rid of any kind of intimidation within the group.
  • Note takers document decisions, discussions, and action points of the group so that leaders or facilitators or any member of the group can recall previously stated concerns or statements and keep track of their progress. This role is especially important in a long, varied and drawn-out discussion, where it’s hard to remember who said what.
• Make sure that everyone understands what is meant by “consensus” (see Steps above) since everyone will want to know when consensus is reached.
• Be patient with people as they learn about the consensus climate. It is often much different for people (especially individuals from Europe and North America) from democratic lifestyles.
• Set aside some time for silence during the discussion. Participants will give more measured and well-reasoned opinions if they have time to think before they speak.
• Keep in mind that the goal is to reach a decision the group can accept, not necessarily a decision that fulfills every member’s wishes.

Warnings

• Watch out for belligerent decision makers who seek to make an argument personal or off-topic. Facilitators and empaths (if you use the roles mentioned in Tips) should be tasked with maintaining the positive atmosphere of consensus decision-making.

Related wikiHows

• How to Lead a Discussion
• How to Resolve a Conflict at Work
• How to Deal With Impossible People
• How to Make a Decision Using a Quantitative Scoring System

Sources and Citations

• Some information for this article was adapted from the Wikipedia article on consensus decision-making.

Article provided by wikiHow, a collaborative writing project to build the world’s largest, highest quality how-to manual. Please edit this article and find author credits at the original wikiHow article on How to Reach a Consensus. All content on wikiHow can be shared under a Creative Commons license.

Race & Racism: Food for Thought

Race: a false classification of people that is not based on any real or accurate scientific truth. The classification was created with the purpose of giving power to white people and to legitimize the dominance of white people over non-white people.

Power: access to resources, the ability to influence others, and access to decision makers to get what you want.

Racism: social and institutional power + race prejudice

Oppression: the systemic subjugation of one group by another with access to local power.

Internalized Racial Oppression: accepting and acting out a definition of self given you by your oppressor and rooted in a construct that names your race as inferior. Believing the images, stereotypes, prejudices and myths about ourselves or those of our own racial group which are based on racist messages we receive from the broader system we live in.

Internalized white privilege: the way those in the dominant group internalize, accept and act out a definition of self given to you by your self and which comes from a system which designated your race as a superior race. Shows up in resistance to change, paternalism, scapegoating and blaming – having choices, freedom and opportunity, believing the system is fair.

From: Appalachian Community Fund

Internalized Racism:

Internalized racism is the situation that occurs in a racist system when a racial group oppressed by racism supports the supremacy and dominance of the dominating group by maintaining or participating in the set of attitudes, behaviors, social structures and ideologies that undergird the dominating group’s power. It involves four essential and interconnected elements:

1.  Decision-making - Due to racism, people of color do not have the ultimate decision-making power over the decisions that control our lives and resources. As a result, on a personal level, we may think white people know more about what needs to be done for us than we do. On an interpersonal level, we may not support each other’s authority and power – especially if it is in opposition to the dominating racial group. Structurally, there is a system in place that rewards people of color who support white supremacy and power and coerces or punishes those who do not.

2.  Resources - Resources, broadly defined (e.g. money, time, etc), are unequally in the hands and under the control of white people. Internalized racism is the system in place that makes it difficult for people of color to get access to resources for our own communities and to control the resources of our community. We learn to believe that serving and using resources for ourselves and our particular community is not serving “everybody.”

3.  Standards - With internalized racism, the standards for what is appropriate or “normal” that people of color accept are white people’s or Eurocentric standards. We have difficulty naming, communicating and living up to our deepest standards and values, and holding ourselves and each other accountable to them.

4.  Naming the problem - There is a system in place that misnames the problem of racism as a problem of or caused by people of color and blames the disease - emotional, economic, political, etc. - on people of color. With internalized racism, people of color might, for example, believe we are more violent than white people and not consider state-sanctioned political violence or the hidden or privatized violence of white people and the systems they put in place and support.

From: “Internalized Racism: A Definition,”
Women’s Theological Center, Donna Bivens

Cultural Racism:

Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label People of Color as “other,” different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as the great writers or composers.

From: “Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook”
New York: Routledge - Maurianne Adams, Lee Anne Bell, and Pat Griffin, editors

Structural Racism:

A structural racism analytical framework identifies aspects of our history and culture that have allowed the privilege associated with ‘whiteness’ and the disadvantage of ‘color’ to endure and adapt over time. It points out the ways in which public policies and institutional practices contribute to inequitable racial outcomes. It lays out assumptions and stereotypes that are embedded in our culture that, in effect, legitimize racial disparities, and it illuminates the ways in which progress toward racial equity is undermined.

From: “Structural Racism and Youth Development Issues,
Challenges, and Implications”
New York: The Aspen Institute - Karen Fulbright-Anderson, Keith Lawrence,
Stacey Sutton, Gretchen Susi, and Anne Kubisch

When we are subjected to all forms of racism and compound that with internal racism toward one another, we are destined to fail.

New Program: Sacred Tree Recovery Circle in Knoxville

Sacred Tree Recovery Circle Flyer

The Sacred Tree Recovery Circle,  a weekly Native American-oriented (combined NA/White Bison) recovery circle, will begin meeting Sundays from 7:30-9:00 p.m. (Indian time) in Knoxville at 3200 Maryville Pike, Knoxville TN, 37920 (where we have First Nations First Saturdays and where the last commission meeting was held), starting Sunday, October 21, 2007.

The circle is for recovering substance abusers and will be led by John Roos (Lakota). All recovering addicts are welcome. For more information about the circle, call John at 865-405-5698.

For directions to the meeting place, call John or you can call me at 865-609-0574.

Flyer for distribution is attached.

Kudos - Community Calendar

A quick note of thanks to Donna Smith who thoughtfully provides a community calendar on American Indian events taking place in Tennessee and/or of interest to American Indians living in Tennessee. Donna’s calendar is providing the feed for the “Upcoming TN Events” listing in the sidebar. You can access the calendar directly at this link.

Thanks, Donna!