Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #4

 Striving for consensus: when the work is a burden

Whether the decision under consideration is one of public policy, institutional policy, or corporate policy, the traps that doom consensus are only avoided when two things happen. 

1. Facilitation is skilled. 

2. Those included in the process have honest and beneficial intentions. 

So, for example, when the actual effort is being put forth to use a robust consensus process, that implies that the time has been set aside to pursue it properly. This hearkens back to an original decision made by the person or small group of people to actually engage in a consensus process. 

Overuse of this can lead to frustrated groups who rush things. When an executive decision can get something accomplished in a relatively minor question, but people are put through a rigorous process of seemingly endless discussion and debate over minor issues, consensus begins to look like a chore and a waste of time. A balanced approach, with all minor decisions simply made by the person tasked with that authority, and a serious consensus process undertaken only in the truly weighty decisions, gives consensus its proper role. 

Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #3

 Your group is multicultural, including some from marginalized groups

Even if you are not engaging in a formalized consensus-based decision-making process, a partial consensus process can help reduce the inequalities that marginalized members feel and, in their reticence to participate, participate in some ways in perpetuating that marginalization. One study of this intersection of phenomena revealed by post-process discussion to be perceived by all as a helpful tactic. In this particular case a professor noticed that some students participated far more and some not at all--including some who were likely self-censoring out of caution of being silenced by others. The professor simply wrote a name on the board when a student raised a hand and wrote the next name underneath when a different student raised a hand. Students quickly began to enforce a no-talking-out-of-turn process and later told the professor they liked that process very much. It's not pure consensus (the professor is still responsible for the process) but it gave far more agency to students and felt much more empowering to them as they later expressed (Johnson, 2023).

References

Johnson, S. (2023). From free‐for‐all (free‐for‐some?) to speakers’ list: Using consensus‐based decision‐making practice to enhance student participation in the theological classroom. Teaching Theology & Religion, 26(4), 129–134. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1111/teth.12650

Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #2

 Consensus vs hierarchy

Virtually all forms of decision-making tend to favor a hierarchical organizational structure except for consensus. Ah, one might say, so consensus is anarchy! No hierarchy!

Well, if so, it is the most solid, informed, deliberate form of anarchy imaginable. And, in many cases, like some situations of anarchy, it's only briefly anarchical before returning to some form of hierarchy. 

But when a group commits to making a particular decision using consensus, the hierarchy is flattened. Positions with titles--President, Chief Operating Officer, Grand Poobah--are all checked at the door, as are all intelligence-gathering for purposes of revenge. No disagreements that flare up in a consensus process may be used for later punitive purposes. 

In short, willingness to engage in a real consensus process involves trust. Any violation of that trust may doom future use of consensus, and that is crucial for the facilitator to emphasize. 

It is not a coincidence that many feminist-value groups use consensus, as they usually feature a nurturing, flatter hierarchy than typical command-and-control organizations. This is partially why consensus is a natural component of a conflict transformation practice (or degree program).

Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #1

What is consensus decision-making?

The best little handbook helping us learn consensus decision-making is Consensus through conversation: How to achieve high-commitment decisions by Larry Dressler (2006). He defines consensus as, "Consensus is a coöperative process in which all group members develop and agree to support a decision that is in the best interest of the whole" (p. 4). 

Consensus decision-making is not perfect for all decisions. It takes time and time priorities for low-impact decisions often preclude a laborious consensus process. But when stakes are high, consensus can be well worth the investment of time taken to arrive at the wisest course of action. 

As an example, as a result of the outbreak of covid-19 the European Union health experts undertook a complex and time-consuming consensus process to develop an on-the-shelf plan for public health emergencies preparedness, response, and recovery (PHEPR). Public health experts from across the EU eventually reached consensus on developing checklists for the EU to be ready for a wide range of possible public health emergencies (Kagma, et al., 2025). High stakes deserve the time and the gathered expertise that true consensus can, and should, deliver.

What to have for dinner shouldn't take more than a bit of conversation unless it's a high stakes event. The host can make a command-and-control decision without a great deal of risk. Knowing the difference can tailor the process appropriately.

References

Dressler, Larry (2006). Consensus through conversation: How to achieve high-commitment decisions. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Kamga, L. S. K., Voordouw, A. C. G., De Vries, M. C., Koopmans, M. P. G., & Timen, A. (2025). Which sectors should be involved in public health emergency preparedness, response, and recovery decision-making? A RAND-modified consensus procedure among European Union country experts. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 1–11. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1186/s12889-025-23557-8