Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #11

 Bringing consensus elements into community organizing

While an adversarial community organizing model has been highly effective in many cases, from Saul Alinsky's model developed in Chicago neighborhoods, it is not the sort of relational sustainable development that tends to avoid more destructive conflicts. 

The Consensus Community Organizing Center[1], founded in 1999 at San Diego State University, introduced another model of teaching and practicing community organizing that was based on developing opportunities for all stakeholders based on mutual gain, which is, of course on the four pillars of principled negotiation. In some ways, it mimicked core components of how Gandhi, MLK, and Cesar Chavez organized--never seeking to crush anyone, always regarding relationships as key--but the method that is the basis of a school of teaching and practicing at the CCOC eschews civil disobedience, not by condemning it or devaluing it, but by focusing on initiatives that will not likely ever be dependent on offering civil resistance. 

Having noted that, it is often the case that nonviolent civil resistance can be rendered unnecessary by working to develop alternatives that serve the self-interest of the stakeholders, even when they seem to be opposed to each other. Founder Michael Eichler did this in several community organizing projects, the result of which was to "bake a bigger pie," that is, to find new resources to support the enhancement of multiple stakeholders.

This model can be far more successful than the assumption that "they" are the bad guys bent on being unfair to "us." It may tend to have some limits, which only means it's one approach to consider, not a one-method-in-all-situations: 

·       If there have been actual atrocities, it may be substantially harder to introduce a model that seeks to serve all parties' self-interests.

·       When the issues are highly polarized and girded by deeply morally conflicting ideologies, finding middle ground may be impossible (e.g., impossible to serve the interests of committed racists determined to squash aspirations of minority communities).

Nonetheless, aspects of consensus organizing can make the launch of a nonviolent civil resistance campaign more likely to succeed with far fewer damages--more gain, less pain. Gandhi did that with the British, to the point where British working class people tended to support him, a remarkable gain. Dr. King devoted great effort to healing and improving relationships amongst the Southern clergy who often opposed him--his Letter from Birmingham Jail[2] is a master class in exactly this. Cesar Chavez showed respect for the owners of the fields where they exploited migrant laborers even as he held them to the same high standard of human comportment that he practiced. 

African American historian Mary Frances Berry has written about utilizing the "inside game" of political work, which one might roughly equate with consensus organizing, and, when required, the "outside game" of nonviolent civil resistance when the inside game was blocked, stalled, or too slow.

In the end, though there are many paths to victory in any campaign to change, abolish, or defend a policy of a government, corporation, or institution, it is wise to always consider every option except violence. It is unhelpful to disregard any nonviolent method, as all have something to offer in any given moment.

---

[1] https://consensus.sdsu.edu/

[2] https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/reading-room/2023-01-16-letter-from-a-birmingham-jail

Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #10

Size matters

If Scotland were a recognized nation-state--which they would be had their vote for sovereignty not failed--they would be a much smaller nation than the big ones--India, China, the US, and 119 more[1] that would have a larger population than Scotland. Research into the potential for consensus being a key element in the "Scottish Approach" suggests that it may someday live up to the dearly held myths of an ancient Scottish governance practice that was far more participatory than merely voting in elections (Cairney, 2015). The researcher seems to suggest that time to begin such a "devolution" would ideally be when few truly hard choices over perduring problems would make consensus likely fail and be discarded, with a reversion to a more command-and-control model. 

This raises the idea that, in the context of national politics, the size of the overall population might generally tend to be more or less amenable to a consensus approach, with the relational strengths of smaller nations lending advantage to attempting to introduce a consensus approach at the national level. If that is true, it seems logical that a much more local level would test out more strongly in any initiative to introduce a consensus model. 

It might also suggest that, given the modifications made to consensus by larger international bodies, there are lessons from many places about the likelihood of success, depending in part on the alterations attempted and deemed acceptable. 

While consensus isn't necessary one of the means of governance of highly democratic nations, it is interesting that countries that Democracy Matrix[2] ranks as "Deficient democracies," (including the US, Liberia, Poland, Panama and others) likely have few, if any, structures of consensus at national, state/province, or local levels). As the rankings get into autocracy (e.g., China, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, North Korea and more), one might predict fewer instances of attempts to practice consensus at any level.

Indeed, what is the relationship of consensus to democracy? When democracy is defined as "majority rule," that, in itself, can be a serious deficiency, as it says nothing about minority rights--the hallmark of the strongest democracies. Any permutation of consensus would likely tend to enfold minority rights much more vigorously than mere majority rule, making it very likely that, to the extent consensus is embedded in layers of governance, that democracy is of a higher caliber. 

References

Cairney, P. (2015). Scotland’s Future Political System. Political Quarterly, 86(2), 217–225. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1111/1467-923X.12154

---

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

[2] https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking

Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #9

 The art of the possible: Politicians and engineers

Imagine a rail system that, in one country, uses a set gauge of track. The neighboring country to the east decides to use a different gauge of track, effectively making significant trade between the countries impossible. Can units of government agree not to hobble themselves in this way? How can consensus be achieved with the competing factors of replacement cost, fear of invasion, philosophical belief in either laissez faire rights of private railroads to do what they want or absolute sovereignty of countries or even states within countries? This set of confounding components, for example, even kept India[1] from managing its internal gauge break issues into the 21st century.

Whether it's a rail gauge break problem, a water flow issue from an upstream country to a downstream country or any number of other critical infrastructure challenges, practitioners and researchers work to develop methods of achieving cross-cultural consensus, including all stakeholders, many with very different priorities (Wang, Liu, Pan & Li, 2025).

References

Wang, T., Liu, J., Pan, Y., & Li, H. (2025). Antecedents to Moving Forward: Impact of Multiple Stakeholder Relationship Networks on Operational Resilience in Cross-Border Critical Infrastructure Systems. Journal of Management in Engineering, 41(5), 1–14. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-6546

---

[1] https://creativematter.skidmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=hist_stu_schol

Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #8

 Who is at the table? Taking it to the international feast and famine

When we consider bargaining across cultures and even across national boundaries, what does research help us understand? What are the best negotiating methods?

University of Mississippi political scientist Lauren Ferry (2023) examined cases of creditor-borrower negotiations in which the borrower sought debt restructuring and found that borrower nations chose different modes depending on which creditor nation or nations were part of the process. 

Ferry found that more complex negotiations between multiple creditor nations led to a focus on the creditor nation or nations least likely to agree to more expansive terms. That is due to the accepted norm of consensus, meaning that the creditor nation least prepared to agree to more lenient terms was the linchpin, thus usually tending to make that nation the focus of the debtor nation's negotiating strategy.

In the end, Ferry's research into publicity about and outcomes from such restructuring processes between 1980-2009, showed that the aggregate number of creditor nations at the table is related to tactics and strategies by debtor nations. When the number needed for consensus increases, the bolder and riskier the borrower nation's coercive methods become, all with the aim of bringing the most reluctant creditor nation into some form of agreement. 

These negotiations are cross cultural by definition. The findings can help us weigh best practices--can we reduce the number of parties at the table without exposing the outcome to spoiler attacks? Can we modify a default consensus expectation to mitigate a radical reaction tendency? 

While a truly transnational culture of diplomacy and negotiation practices is an ideal, bearing in mind what tendencies are proven to exist can make such complex negotiations more likely to bear fruit and less likely to feature hostile force of various sorts. 

References

Ferry, L. (2023). Getting to yes: The role of creditor coordination in debt restructuring negotiations. International Interactions, 49(1), 31–58. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/03050629.2023.2156996

Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #7

 Global consensus vs local conflict

There are many topics that many claim to have achieved global consensus: human rights, ban on chlorofluorocarbons, outlawing slavery, fighting global climate chaos, and many more, including sustainable development.

But is there actual consensus? If the appearance of consensus exists, how was it achieved? Is there undue influence by monied parties exerting economic pressure, militarily dominant nations or coalitions effectively forcing "agreement" or other inauthentic consensus practices? Was some of the consensus achieved by relatively small numbers of powerful parties long ago and challenges are increasing due to the objections of those parties not consulted or otherwise shut aside in the name of declaring universal acceptance? Consensus decision-making timelines are often quite different from majority-rule or top-down methods, and thus there are also questions about the time devoted to achieving the claim of consensus being adequate or not.

This critique of claim of consensus will either be acknowledged and revisited with inclusivity and an improved process or destructive conflict may emerge, as it has in several cases, including a declaration of human rights by Muslim-majority countries that means to supplant the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is also emerging in the assertion of consensus around sustainable development as a function of local values and practices (Leach, Mearns & Scoones, 2025).

References

Leach, M., Mearns, R., & Scoones, I. (2025). Editorial: Community-Based Sustainable Development: Consensus or Conflict? IDS Bulletin, 56(1A), 1–3. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.19088/1968-2025.104

Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #6

 Saul Alinsky's rules vs consensus organizing

Conflict organizing does build consensus, but within a group that initially shares the interest of eliminating a specific grievance. Consensus organizing attempts to enlarge that consensus by working with the theory we learn about in Getting to Yes: digging deeply toward identifying the interests of all parties. Where there is overlap, and where the net result can be a win for all parties in some form, consensus organizing is more sustainable than the zero-sum approach of Alinsky's general model of conflict organizing, as effective as that is. 

The consensus organizing model overlaps conflict organizing quite a bit at certain stages. For example, if a goal identified by the community (not one assumed by the organizers) ultimately is at complete odds with those who decide policy--a government, a corporation, or an institution--then the methods of conflict organizing are identical to consensus organizing--quite adversarial. But the consensus organizing model is far better at openly exploring possibilities for win-win outcomes than the Alinsky model, in general.

Consensus: group decision-making & community organizing #5

 What about consensus in massive complex government projects?

In complex government projects some innovative consensus methods have helped to reduce non-expert but fully stakeholder conflict with experts by a modified consensus approach that seeks the basic elements of consensus but in a streamlined fashion to reduce the high costs of a longer, classical consensus process. This may not only reduce costs and timelines on the front end, but may very well reduce subsequent resistance and slowdowns from the classical command-and-control approach.

"In this way, collective intelligence across different subgroups of society can be leveraged simultaneously, involving experts and non-experts, called heterogeneous decision-makers in this study" (Singh, Baranwal & Tripathi, 2023, p. 3936).

Researchers into consensus processes, including large organization efforts to achieve a version of consensus in complex policy or project initiatives now incorporate more complex variables into their analysis, including the amount of historical knowledge the moderators or facilitators have about their participants, the ultimate decision-makers, which can make this research more accurate and thus more usable (Liang, Qu & Dai, 2024).

Another permutation of consensus development is the Delphi process in which a large diverse group of experts (by both profession and germane lived experience) meet to develop points in a plan to effectuate some desired change, and successive rounds of polling and explainers gradually generate a prioritized plan acceptable to virtually all (Ahmed, et al., 2025). This has potential to involve geographically dispersed, very differently qualified experts in a large collective decision-making and plan creation. In the research cited by Ahmed and colleagues, the presenting problem was a data-driven conclusion that health care inequities across the UK were not diminishing, and in fact were worsening. Some 76 experts--medical professionals at virtually all levels, victims of health care inequities, researchers, and officials--participating in this Delphi consensus process reached consensus after several rounds of surveys and consideration of reports from each round over two years. This robust process holds strong promise for wiser decisions around addressing persistent public problems.

References

Ahmed, F., Woodhead, C., Hossaini, A., Stanley, N., Ensum, L., Rhead, R., Onwumere, J., Mir, G., Dyer, J., & Hatch, S. L. (2025). Guiding principles for accelerating change through health inequities research and practice: A modified Delphi consensus process. PLoS ONE, 20(7), 1–15. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0327552

Liang, H., Qu, S., & Dai, Z. (2024). Robust maximum fairness consensus models with aggregation operator based on data-driven method. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 47(1/2), 111–129. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.3233/JIFS-237153

Singh, M., Baranwal, G., & Tripathi, A. K. (2023). A novel 2-phase consensus with customized feedback based group decision-making involving heterogeneous decision-makers. Journal of Supercomputing, 79(4), 3936–3973. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1007/s11227-022-04796-7

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