Hello all,
Below is a great handbook on facilitating and running meetings. It also
outlines how grassroots people's organizations, like our computer user
groups and networks, can make decisions in a cooperative way where all
members have a voice, can be listened to, and various vieewpoints
discussed. This handbook is published by the Food Not Bombs Publishing
collective in Portland, Maine.
kelly
ON CONFLICT AND CONSENSUS
a handbook on Formal Consensus decisionmaking
by C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein
If war is the violent resolution of conflict,
then peace is not the absence of conflict,
but rather,
the ability to resolve conflict
without violence.
C.T. Butler
________________________________________________________________________
Consensus, as a decisionmaking process, has been developing for
centuries. Many people, in diverse communities, have contributed to
this development. From them, we have borrowed generously and adapted
freely.
__________________________________________________________________________
Contents
1 The Advantages of Formal Consensus
Group Dynamics
Characteristics of Formal Consensus
2 On Decisionmaking
The Structure of Formal Consensus
The Flow of Formal Consensus
The Rules of Formal Consensus
3 On Conflict and Consensus
Foundation Upon Which Consensus Is Built
Impediments To Consensus
On Degrees of Conflict
4 The Art of Evaluation
Purpose of Evaluation
Uses of Evaluation
Types of Evaluation Questions
5 Roles
Agenda Planners
Standard Agenda
Facilitator
Peacekeeper
Advocate
Timekeeper
Public Scribe
Notetaker
Doorkeeper
6 Techniques
Facilitation Techniques
Group Discussion Techniques
Glossary
Bibliography
Index
__________________________________________________________________________
1 The Advantages of Formal Consensus
There are many ways to make decisions. Sometimes, the most efficient
way to make decisions would be to just let the manager (or CEO, or
dictator) make them. However, efficiency is not the only criteria.
When choosing a decisionmaking method, one needs to ask two questions.
Is it a fair process? Does it produce good solutions?
To judge the process, consider the following: Does the meeting flow
smoothly? Is the discussion kept to the point? Does it take too long
to make each decision? Does the leadership determine the outcome of
the discussion? Are some people overlooked?
To judge the quality of the end result, the decision, consider: Are
the people making the decision, and all those affected, satisfied with
the result? To what degree is the intent of the original proposal
accomplished? Are the underlying issues addressed? Is there an
appropriate use of resources? Would the group make the same decision
again?
Autocracy can work, but the idea of a benevolent dictator is just a
dream. We believe that it is inherently better to involve every person
who is affected by the decision in the decisionmaking process. This is
true for several reasons. The decision would reflect the will of the
entire group, not just the leadership. The people who carry out the
plans will be more satisfied with their work. And, as the old adage
goes, two heads are better than one.
This book presents a particular model for decisionmaking we call
Formal Consensus. Formal Consensus has a clearly defined structure. It
requires a commitment to active cooperation, disciplined speaking and
listening, and respect for the contributions of every member.
Likewise, every person has the responsibility to actively participate
as a creative individual within the structure.
Avoidance, denial, and repression of conflict is common during
meetings. Therefore, using Formal Consensus might not be easy at
first. Unresolved conflict from previous experiences could come
rushing forth and make the process difficult, if not impossible.
Practice and discipline, however, will smooth the process. The benefit
of everyone's participation and cooperation is worth the struggle it
may initially take to ensure that all voices are heard.
It is often said that consensus is time-consuming and difficult.
Making complex, difficult decisions is time-consuming, no matter what
the process. Many different methods can be efficient, if every
participant shares a common understanding of the rules of the game.
Like any process, Formal Consensus can be inefficient if a group does
not first assent to follow a particular structure.
This book codifies a formal structure for decisionmaking. It is hoped
that the relationship between this book and Formal Consensus would be
similar to the relationship between Robert's Rules of Order and
Parliamentary Procedure.
Methods of decisionmaking can be seen on a continuum with one person
having total authority on one end to everyone sharing power and
responsibility on the other.
The level of participation increases along this decisionmaking
continuum. Oligarchies and autocracies offer no participation to many
of those who are directly affected. Representative, majority rule, and
consensus democracies involve everybody, to different degrees.
Group Dynamics
A group, by definition, is a number of individuals having some
unifying relationship. The group dynamic created by consensus process
is completely different from that of Parliamentary Procedure, from
start to finish. It is based on different values and uses a different
language, a different structure, and many different techniques,
although some techniques are similar. It might be helpful to explain
some broad concepts about group dynamics and consensus.
Conflict
While decisionmaking is as much about conflict as it is about
agreement, Formal Consensus works best in an atmosphere in which
conflict is encouraged, supported, and resolved cooperatively with
respect, nonviolence, and creativity. Conflict is desirable. It is not
something to be avoided, dismissed, diminished, or denied.
Majority Rule and Competition
Generally speaking, when a group votes using majority rule or
Parliamentary Procedure, a competitive dynamic is created within the
group because it is being asked to choose between two (or more)
possibilities. It is just as acceptable to attack and diminish
another's point of view as it is to promote and endorse your own
ideas. Often, voting occurs before one side reveals anything about
itself, but spends time solely attacking the opponent! In this
adversarial environment, one's ideas are owned and often defended in
the face of improvements.
Consensus and Cooperation
Consensus process, on the other hand, creates a cooperative dynamic.
Only one proposal is considered at a time. Everyone works together to
make it the best possible decision for the group. Any concerns are
raised and resolved, sometimes one by one, until all voices are heard.
Since proposals are no longer the property of the presenter, a
solution can be created more cooperatively.
Proposals
In the consensus process, only proposals which intend to accomplish
the common purpose are considered. During discussion of a proposal,
everyone works to improve the proposal to make it the best decision
for the group. All proposals are adopted unless the group decides it
is contrary to the best interests of the group.
Characteristics of Formal Consensus
Before a group decides to use Formal Consensus, it must honestly
assess its ability to honor the principles described in Chapter Three.
If the principles described in this book are not already present or if
the group is not willing to work to create them, then Formal Consensus
will not be possible. Any group which wants to adopt Formal Consensus
needs to give considerable attention to the underlying principles
which support consensus and help the process operate smoothly. This is
not to say each and every one of the principles described herein must
be adopted by every group, or that each group cannot add its own
principles specific to its goals, but rather, each group must be very
clear about the foundation of principles or common purposes they
choose before they attempt the Formal Consensus decisionmaking
process.
Formal Consensus is the least violent decisionmaking process.
Traditional nonviolence theory holds that the use of power to dominate
is violent and undesirable. Nonviolence expects people to use their
power to persuade without deception, coercion, or malice, using truth,
creativity, logic, respect, and love. Majority rule voting process and
Parliamentary Procedure both accept, and even encourage, the use of
power to dominate others. The goal is the winning of the vote, often
regardless of another choice which might be in the best interest of
the whole group. The will of the majority supersedes the concerns and
desires of the minority. This is inherently violent. Consensus strives
to take into account everyone's concerns and resolve them before any
decision is made. Most importantly, this process encourages an
environment in which everyone is respected and all contributions are
valued.
Formal Consensus is the most democratic decisionmaking process.
Groups which desire to involve as many people as possible need to use
an inclusive process. To attract and involve large numbers, it is
important that the process encourages participation, allows equal
access to power, develops cooperation, promotes empowerment, and
creates a sense of individual responsibility for the group's actions.
All of these are cornerstones of Formal Consensus. The goal of
consensus is not the selection of several options, but the development
of one decision which is the best for the whole group. It is synthesis
and evolution, not competition and attrition.
Formal Consensus is based on the principles of the group.
Although every individual must consent to a decision before it is
adopted, if there are any objections, it is not the choice of the
individual alone to determine if an objection prevents the proposal
from being adopted. Every objection or concern must first be presented
before the group and either resolved or validated. A valid objection
is one in keeping with all previous decisions of the group and based
upon the commonly-held principles or foundation adopted by the group.
The objection must not only address the concerns of the individual,
but it must also be in the best interest of the group as a whole. If
the objection is not based upon the foundation, or is in contradiction
with a prior decision, it is not valid for the group, and therefore,
out of order.
Formal Consensus is desirable in larger groups.
If the structure is vague, decisions can be difficult to achieve. They
will become increasingly more difficult in larger groups. Formal
Consensus is designed for large groups. It is a highly structured
model. It has guidelines and formats for managing meetings,
facilitating discussions, resolving conflict, and reaching decisions.
Smaller groups may need less structure, so they may choose from the
many techniques and roles suggested in this book.
Formal Consensus works better when more people participate.
Consensus is more than the sum total of ideas of the individuals in
the group. During discussion, ideas build one upon the next,
generating new ideas, until the best decision emerges. This dynamic is
called the creative interplay of ideas. Creativity plays a major part
as everyone strives to discover what is best for the group. The more
people involved in this cooperative process, the more ideas and
possibilities are generated. Consensus works best with everyone
participating. (This assumes, of course, that everyone in the group is
trained in Formal Consensus and is actively using it.)
Formal Consensus is not inherently time-consuming.
Decisions are not an end in themselves. Decisionmaking is a process
which starts with an idea and ends with the actual implementation of
the decision. While it may be true in an autocratic process that
decisions can be made quickly, the actual implementation will take
time. When one person or a small group of people makes a decision for
a larger group, the decision not only has to be communicated to the
others, but it also has to be acceptable to them or its implementation
will need to be forced upon them. This will certainly take time,
perhaps a considerable amount of time. On the other hand, if everyone
participates in the decisionmaking, the decision does not need to be
communicated and its implementation does not need to be forced upon
the participants. The decision may take longer to make, but once it is
made, implementation can happen in a timely manner. The amount of time
a decision takes to make from start to finish is not a factor of the
process used; rather, it is a factor of the complexity of the proposal
itself. An easy decision takes less time than a difficult, complex
decision, regardless of the process used or the number of people
involved. Of course, Formal Consensus works better if one practices
patience, but any process is improved with a generous amount of
patience.
Formal Consensus cannot be secretly disrupted.
This may not be an issue for some groups, but many people know that
the state actively surveilles, infiltrates, and disrupts nonviolent
domestic political and religious groups. To counteract anti-democratic
tactics by the state, a group would need to develop and encourage a
decisionmaking process which could not be covertly controlled or
manipulated. Formal Consensus, if practiced as described in this book,
is just such a process. Since the assumption is one of cooperation and
good will, it is always appropriate to ask for an explanation of how
and why someone's actions are in the best interest of the group.
Disruptive behavior must not be tolerated. While it is true this
process cannot prevent openly disruptive behavior, the point is to
prevent covert disruption, hidden agenda, and malicious manipulation
of the process. Any group for which infiltration is a threat ought to
consider the process outlined in this book if it wishes to remain
open, democratic, and productive.
__________________________________________________________________________
2 On Decisionmaking
Decisions are adopted when all participants consent to the result of
discussion about the original proposal. People who do not agree with a
proposal are responsible for expressing their concerns. No decision is
adopted until there is resolution of every concern. When concerns
remain after discussion, individuals can agree to disagree by
acknowledging that they have unresolved concerns, but consent to the
proposal anyway and allow it to be adopted. Therefore, reaching
consensus does not assume that everyone must be in complete agreement,
a highly unlikely situation in a group of intelligent, creative
individuals.
Consensus is becoming popular as a democratic form of decisionmaking.
It is a process which requires an environment in which all
contributions are valued and participation is encouraged. There are,
however, few organizations which use a model of consensus which is
specific, consistent, and efficient. Often, the consensus process is
informal, vague, and very inconsistent. This happens when the
consensus process is not based upon a solid foundation and the
structure is unknown or nonexistent. To develop a more formal type of
consensus process, any organization must define the commonly held
principles which form the foundation of the group's work and
intentionally choose the type of structure within which the process is
built.
This book contains the building materials for just such a process.
Included is a description of the principles from which a foundation is
created, the flowchart and levels of structure which are the frame for
the process, and the other materials needed for designing a variety of
processes which can be customized to fit the needs of the
organization.
The Structure of Formal Consensus
Many groups regularly use diverse discussion techniques learned from
practitioners in the field of conflict resolution. Although this book
does include several techniques, the book is about a structure called
Formal Consensus. This structure creates a separation between the
identification and the resolution of concerns. Perhaps, if everybody
in the group has no trouble saying what they think, they won't need
this structure. This predictable structure provides opportunities to
those who don't feel empowered to participate.
Formal Consensus is presented in levels or cycles. In the first level,
the idea is to allow everyone to express their perspective, including
concerns, but group time is not spent on resolving problems. In the
second level the group focuses its attention on identifying concerns,
still not resolving them. This requires discipline. Reactive comments,
even funny ones, and resolutions, even good ones, can suppress the
creative ideas of others. Not until the third level does the structure
allow for exploring resolutions.
Each level has a different scope and focus. At the first level, the
scope is broad, allowing the discussion to consider the philosophical
and political implications as well as the general merits and drawbacks
and other relevant information. The only focus is on the proposal as a
whole. Some decisions can be reached after discussion at the first
level. At the second level, the scope of the discussion is limited to
the concerns. They are identified and publicly listed, which enables
everyone to get an overall picture of the concerns. The focus of
attention is on identifying the body of concerns and grouping similar
ones. At the third level, the scope is very narrow. The focus of
discussion is limited to a single unresolved concern until it is
resolved.
The Flow of the Formal Consensus Process
In an ideal situation, every proposal would be submitted in writing
and briefly introduced the first time it appears on the agenda. At the
next meeting, after everyone has had enough time to read it and
carefully consider any concerns, the discussion would begin in
earnest. Often, it would not be until the third meeting that a
decision is made. Of course, this depends upon how many proposals are
on the table and the urgency of the decision.
Clarify the Process
The facilitator introduces the person presenting the proposal and
gives a short update on any previous action on it. It is very
important for the facilitator to explain the process which brought
this proposal to the meeting, and to describe the process that will be
followed to move the group through the proposal to consensus. It is
the facilitator's job to make sure that every participant clearly
understands the structure and the discussion techniques being employed
while the meeting is in progress.
Present Proposal or Issue
When possible and appropriate, proposals ought to be prepared in
writing and distributed well in advance of the meeting in which a
decision is required. This encourages prior discussion and
consideration, helps the presenter anticipate concerns, minimizes
surprises, and involves everyone in creating the proposal. (If the
necessary groundwork has not been done, the wisest choice might be to
send the proposal to committee. Proposal writing is difficult to
accomplish in a large group. The committee would develop the proposal
for consideration at a later time.) The presenter reads the written
proposal aloud, provides background information, and states clearly
its benefits and reasons for adoption, including addressing any
existing concerns.
Questions Which Clarify the Presentation
Questions are strictly limited by the facilitator to those which seek
greater comprehension of the proposal as presented. Everyone deserves
the opportunity to fully understand what is being asked of the group
before discussion begins. This is not a time for comments or concerns.
If there are only a few questions, they can be answered one at a time
by the person presenting the proposal. If there are many, a useful
technique is hearing all the questions first, then answering them
together. After answering all clarifying questions, the group begins
discussion.
[INLINE]
Level One: Broad Open Discussion
General Discussion
Discussion at this level ought to be the broadest in scope. Try to
encourage comments which take the whole proposal into account; i.e.,
why it is a good idea, or general problems which need to be addressed.
Discussion at this level often has a philosophical or principled tone,
purposely addressing how this proposal might affect the group in the
long run or what kind of precedent it might create, etc. It helps
every proposal to be discussed in this way, before the group engages
in resolving particular concerns. Do not allow one concern to become
the focus of the discussion. When particular concerns are raised, make
note of them but encourage the discussion to move back to the proposal
as a whole. Encourage the creative interplay of comments and ideas.
Allow for the addition of any relevant factual information. For those
who might at first feel opposed to the proposal, this discussion is
consideration of why it might be good for the group in the broadest
sense. Their initial concerns might, in fact, be of general concern to
the whole group. And, for those who initially support the proposal,
this is a time to think about the proposal broadly and some of the
general problems. If there seems to be general approval of the
proposal, the facilitator, or someone recognized to speak, can request
a call for consensus.
Call for Consensus
The facilitator asks, "Are there any unresolved concerns?" or "Are
there any concerns remaining?" After a period of silence, if no
additional concerns are raised, the facilitator declares that
consensus is reached and the proposal is read for the record. The
length of silence ought to be directly related to the degree of
difficulty in reaching consensus; an easy decision requires a short
silence, a difficult decision requires a longer silence. This
encourages everyone to be at peace in accepting the consensus before
moving on to other business. At this point, the facilitator assigns
task responsibilities or sends the decision to a committee for
implementation. It is important to note that the question is not "Is
there consensus?" or "Does everyone agree?". These questions do not
encourage an environment in which all concerns can be expressed. If
some people have a concern, but are shy or intimidated by a strong
showing of support for a proposal, the question "Are there any
unresolved concerns?" speaks directly to them and provides an
opportunity for them to speak. Any concerns for which someone stands
aside are listed with the proposal and become a part of it.
Level Two: Identify Concerns
List All Concerns
At the beginning of the next level, a discussion technique called
brainstorming (see page 55) is used so that concerns can be identified
and written down publicly by the scribe and for the record by the
notetaker. Be sure the scribe is as accurate as possible by checking
with the person who voiced the concern before moving on. This is not a
time to attempt to resolve concerns or determine their validity. That
would stifle free expression of concerns. At this point, only concerns
are to be expressed, reasonable or unreasonable, well thought out or
vague feelings. The facilitator wants to interrupt any comments which
attempt to defend the proposal, resolve the concerns, judge the value
of the concerns, or in any way deny or dismiss another's feelings of
doubt or concern. Sometimes simply allowing a concern to be expressed
and written down helps resolve it. After all concerns have been
listed, allow the group a moment to reflect on them as a whole.
Group Related Concerns
At this point, the focus is on identifying patterns and relationships
between concerns. This short exercise must not be allowed to focus
upon or resolve any particular concern.
Level Three: Resolve Concerns
Resolve Groups of Related Concerns
Often, related concerns can be resolved as a group.
Call for Consensus
If most of the concerns seem to have been resolved, call for consensus
in the manner described earlier. If some concerns have not been
resolved at this time, then a more focused discussion is needed.
Restate Remaining Concerns (One at a Time)
Return to the list. The facilitator checks each one with the group and
removes ones which have been resolved or are, for any reason, no
longer of concern. Each remaining concern is restated clearly and
concisely and addressed one at a time. Sometimes new concerns are
raised which need to be added to the list. However, every individual
is responsible for honestly expressing concerns as they think of them.
It is not appropriate to hold back a concern and spring it upon the
group late in the process. This undermines trust and limits the
group's ability to adequately discuss the concern in its relation to
other concerns.
Questions Which Clarify the Concern
The facilitator asks for any questions or comments which would further
clarify the concern so everyone clearly understands it before
discussion starts.
Discussion Limited to Resolving One Concern
Use as many creative group discussion techniques as needed to
facilitate a resolution for each concern. Keep the discussion focused
upon the particular concern until every suggestion has been offered.
If no new ideas are coming forward and the concern cannot be resolved,
or if the time allotted for this item has been entirely used, move to
one of the closing options described below.
Call for Consensus
Repeat this process until all concerns have been resolved. At this
point, the group should be at consensus, but it would be appropriate
to call for consensus anyway just to be sure no concern has been
overlooked.
Closing Options
Send to Committee
If a decision on the proposal can wait until the whole group meets
again, then send the proposal to a committee which can clarify the
concerns and bring new, creative resolutions for consideration by the
group. It is a good idea to include on the committee representatives
of all the major concerns, as well as those most supportive of the
proposal so they can work out solutions in a less formal setting.
Sometimes, if the decision is needed before the next meeting, a
smaller group can be empowered to make the decision for the larger
group, but again, this committee should include all points of view.
Choose this option only if it is absolutely necessary and the whole
group consents.
Stand Aside (Decision Adopted with Unresolved Concerns Listed)
When a concern has been fully discussed and cannot be resolved, it is
appropriate for the facilitator to ask those persons with this concern
if they are willing to stand aside; that is, acknowledge that the
concern still exists, but allow the proposal to be adopted. It is very
important for the whole group to understand that this unresolved
concern is then written down with the proposal in the record and, in
essence, becomes a part of the decision. This concern can be raised
again and deserves more discussion time as it has not yet been
resolved. In contrast, a concern which has been resolved in past
discussion does not deserve additional discussion, unless something
new has developed. Filibustering is not appropriate in Formal
Consensus.
Declare Block
After having spent the allotted agenda time moving through the three
levels of discussion trying to achieve consensus and concerns remain
which are unresolved, the facilitator is obligated to declare that
consensus cannot be reached at this meeting, that the proposal is
blocked, and move on to the next agenda item. The Rules of Formal
Consensus The guidelines and techniques in this book are flexible and
meant to be modified. Some of the guidelines, however, seem almost
always to be true. These are the Rules of Formal Consensus: 1. Once a
decision has been adopted by consensus, it cannot be changed without
reaching a new consensus. If a new consensus cannot be reached, the
old decision stands. 2. In general, only one person has permission to
speak at any moment. The person with permission to speak is determined
by the group discussion technique in use and/or the facilitator. (The
role of Peacekeeper is exempt from this rule.) 3. All structural
decisions (i.e., which roles to use, who fills each role, and which
facilitation technique and/or group discussion technique to use) are
adopted by consensus without debate. Any objection automatically
causes a new selection to be made. If a role cannot be filled without
objection, the group proceeds without that role being filled. If much
time is spent trying to fill roles or find acceptable techniques, then
the group needs a discussion about the unity of purpose of this group
and why it is having this problem, a discussion which must be put on
the agenda for the next meeting, if not held immediately.4. All
content decisions (i.e., the agenda contract, committee reports,
proposals, etc.) are adopted by consensus after discussion. Every
content decision must be openly discussed before it can be tested for
consensus. 5. A concern must be based upon the principles of the group
to justify a block to consensus. 6. Every meeting which uses Formal
Consensus must have an evaluation.
__________________________________________________________________________
3 On Conflict and Consensus
Conflict is usually viewed as an impediment to reaching agreements and
disruptive to peaceful relationships. However, it is the underlying
thesis of Formal Consensus that nonviolent conflict is necessary and
desirable. It provides the motivations for improvement. The challenge
is the creation of an understanding in all who participate that
conflict, or differing opinions about proposals, is to be expected and
acceptable. Do not avoid or repress conflict. Create an environment in
which disagreement can be expressed without fear. Objections and
criticisms can be heard not as attacks, not as attempts to defeat a
proposal, but as a concern which, when resolved, will make the
proposal stronger.
This understanding of conflict may not be easily accepted by the
members of a group. Our training by society undermines this concept.
Therefore, it will not be easy to create the kind of environment where
differences can be expressed without fear or resentment. But it can be
done. It will require tolerance and a willingness to experiment.
Additionally, the values and principles which form the basis of
commitment to work together to resolve conflict need to be clearly
defined, and accepted by all involved.
If a group desires to adopt Formal Consensus as its decisionmaking
process, the first step is the creation of a Statement of Purpose or
Constitution. This document would describe not only the common
purpose, but would also include the definition of the group's
principles and values. If the group discusses and writes down its
foundation of principles at the start, it is much easier to determine
group versus individual concerns later on.
The following are principles which form the foundation of Formal
Consensus. A commitment to these principles and/or a willingness to
develop them is necessary. In addition to the ones listed herein, the
group might add principles and values which are specific to its
purpose.
Foundation Upon Which Consensus Is Built
For consensus to work well, the process must be conducted in an
environment which promotes trust, respect, and skill sharing. The
following are principles which, when valued and respected, encourage
and build consensus.
Trust
Foremost is the need for trust. Without some amount of trust, there
will be no cooperation or nonviolent resolution to conflict. For trust
to flourish, it is desirable for individuals to be willing to examine
their attitudes and be open to new ideas. Acknowledgement and
appreciation of personal and cultural differences promote trust.
Neither approval nor friendship are necessary for a good working
relationship. By developing trust, the process of consensus encourages
the intellectual and emotional development of the individuals within a
group.
Respect
It is everyone's responsibility to show respect to one another. People
feel respected when everyone listens, when they are not interrupted,
when their ideas are taken seriously. Respect for emotional as well as
logical concerns promotes the kind of environment necessary for
developing consensus. To promote respect, it is important to
distinguish between an action which causes a problem and the person
who did the action, between the deed and the doer. We must criticize
the act, not the person. Even if you think the person is the problem,
responding that way never resolves anything. (See pages 7- 8.)
Unity of Purpose
Unity of purpose is a basic understanding about the goals and purpose
of the group. Of course, there will be varying opinions on the best
way to accomplish these goals. However, there must be a unifying base,
a common starting point, which is recognized and accepted by all.
Nonviolence
Nonviolent decisionmakers use their power to achieve goals while
respecting differences and cooperating with others. In this
environment, it is considered violent to use power to dominate or
control the group process. It is understood that the power of
revealing your truth is the maximum force allowed to persuade others
to your point of view.
Self Empowerment
It is easy for people to unquestioningly rely on authorities and
experts to do their thinking and decisionmaking for them. If members
of a group delegate their authority, intentionally or not, they fail
to accept responsibility for the group's decisions. Consensus promotes
and depends upon self empowerment. Anyone can express concerns.
Everyone seeks creative solutions and is responsible for every
decision. When all are encouraged to participate, the democratic
nature of the process increases.
Cooperation
Unfortunately, Western society is saturated in competition. When
winning arguments becomes more important than achieving the group's
goals, cooperation is difficult, if not impossible. Adversarial
attitudes toward proposals or people focus attention on weakness
rather than strength. An attitude of helpfulness and support builds
cooperation. Cooperation is a shared responsibility in finding
solutions to all concerns. Ideas offered in the spirit of cooperation
help resolve conflict. The best decisions arise through an open and
creative interplay of ideas.
Conflict Resolution
The free flow of ideas, even among friends, inevitably leads to
conflict. In this context, conflict is simply the expression of
disagreement. Disagreement itself is neither good nor bad. Diverse
viewpoints bring into focus and explore the strengths and weaknesses
of attitudes, assumptions, and plans. Without conflict, one is less
likely to think about and evaluate one's views and prejudices. There
is no right decision, only the best one for the whole group. The task
is to work together to discover which choice is most acceptable to all
members.
Avoid blaming anyone for conflict. Blame is inherently violent. It
attacks dignity and empowerment. It encourages people to feel guilty,
defensive, and alienated. The group will lose its ability to resolve
conflict. People will hide their true feelings to avoid being blamed
for the conflict.
Avoidance of conflicting ideas impedes resolution for failure to
explore and develop the feelings that gave rise to the conflict. The
presence of conflict can create an occasion for growth. Learn to use
it as a catalyst for discovering creative resolutions and for
developing a better understanding of each other. With patience, anyone
can learn to resolve conflict creatively, without defensiveness or
guilt. Groups can learn to nurture and support their members in this
effort by allowing creativity and experimentation. This process
necessitates that the group continually evaluate and improve these
skills.
Commitment to the Group
In joining a group, one accepts a personal responsibility to behave
with respect, good will, and honesty. Each one is expected to
recognize that the group's needs have a certain priority over the
desires of the individual. Many people participate in group work in a
very egocentric way. It is important to accept the shared
responsibility for helping to find solutions to other's concerns.
Active Participation
We all have an inalienable right to express our own best thoughts. We
decide for ourselves what is right and wrong. Since consensus is a
process of synthesis, not competition, all sincere comments are
important and valuable. If ideas are put forth as the speaker's
property and individuals are strongly attached to their opinions,
consensus will be extremely difficult. Stubbornness, closedmindedness,
and possessiveness lead to defensive and argumentative behavior that
disrupts the process. For active participation to occur, it is
necessary to promote trust by creating an atmosphere in which every
contribution is considered valuable. With encouragement, each person
can develop knowledge and experience, a sense of responsibility and
competency, and the ability to participate.
Equal Access to Power
Because of personal differences (experience, assertiveness, social
conditioning, access to information, etc.) and political disparities,
some people inevitably have more effective power than others. To
balance this inequity, everyone needs to consciously attempt to
creatively share power, skills, and information. Avoid hierarchical
structures that allow some individuals to assume undemocratic power
over others. Egalitarian and accountable structures promote universal
access to power.
Patience
Consensus cannot be rushed. Often, it functions smoothly, producing
effective, stable results. Sometimes, when difficult situations arise,
consensus requires more time to allow for the creative interplay of
ideas. During these times, patience is more advantageous than tense,
urgent, or aggressive behavior. Consensus is possible as long as each
individual acts patiently and respectfully.
Impediments To Consensus Lack of Training
It is necessary to train people in the theory and practice of
consensus. Until consensus is a common form of decisionmaking in our
society, new members will need some way of learning about the process.
It is important to offer regular opportunities for training. If
learning about Formal Consensus is not made easily accessible, it will
limit full participation and create inequities which undermine this
process. Also, training provides opportunities for people to improve
their skills, particularly facilitation skills, in a setting where
experimentation and role-plays can occur.
External Hierarchical Structures
It can be difficult for a group to reach consensus internally when it
is part of a larger group which does not recognize or participate in
the consensus process. It can be extremely frustrating if those
external to the group can disrupt the decisionmaking by interfering
with the process by pulling rank. Therefore, it is desirable for
individuals and groups to recognize that they can be autonomous in
relation to external power if they are willing to take responsibility
for their actions.
Social Prejudice
Everyone has been exposed to biases, assumptions, and prejudices which
interfere with the spirit of cooperation and equal participation. All
people are influenced by these attitudes, even though they may deplore
them. People are not generally encouraged to confront these prejudices
in themselves or others. Members of a group often reflect social
biases without realizing or attempting to confront and change them. If
the group views a prejudicial attitude as just one individual's
problem, then the group will not address the underlying social
attitudes which create such problems. It is appropriate to expose,
confront, acknowledge, and attempt to resolve socially prejudicial
attitudes, but only in the spirit of mutual respect and trust. Members
are responsible for acknowledging when their attitudes are influenced
by disruptive social training and for changing them. When a supportive
atmosphere for recognizing and changing undesirable attitudes exists,
the group as a whole benefits.
On Degrees of Conflict
Consensus is a process of nonviolent confict resolution. The
expression of concerns and conficting ideas is considered
desirable and important. When a group creates an atmosphere
which nurtures and supports disagreement without hostility and
fear, it builds a foundation for stronger, more creative
decisions.
Each individual is responsible for expressing one's own concerns. It
is best if each concern is expressed as if it will be resolved. The
group then responds by trying to resolve the concern through group
discussion. If the concern remains unresolved after a full and open
discussion, then the facilitator asks how the concern is based upon
the foundation of the group. If it is, then the group accepts that the
proposal is blocked.
From this perspective, it is not decided by the individual alone if a
particular concern is blocking consensus; it is determined in
cooperation with the whole group. The group determines a
concern's legitimacy. A concern is legitimate if it is based
upon the principles of the group and therefore relevant to the
group as a whole. If the concern is determined to be
unprincipled or not of consequence, the group can decide the
concern is inappropriate and drop it from discussion. If a
reasonable solution offered is not accepted by the individual,
the group may decide the concern has been resolved and the
individual is out of order for failure to recognize it.
Herein lies a subtle pitfall. For consensus to work well, it is
helpful for individuals to recognize the group's involvement in
determining which concerns are able to be resolved, which need more
attention, and, ultimately, which are blocking consensus. The pitfall
is failure to accept the limit on an individual's power to determine
which concerns are principled or based upon the foundation of the
group and which ones are resolved. After discussion, if the concern is
valid and unresolved, it again falls upon the individual to choose
whether to stand aside or block consensus.
The individual is responsible for expressing concerns; the group is
responsible for resolving them. The group decides whether a
concern is legitimate; the individual decides whether to block
or stand aside.
All concerns are important and need to be resolved. It is not
appropriate for a person to come to a meeting planning to block a
proposal or, during discussion, to express their concerns as major
objections or blocking concerns. Often, during discussion, the person
learns additional information which resolves the concern. Sometimes,
after expressing the concern, someone is able to creatively resolve it
by thinking of something new. It often happens that a concern which
seems to be extremely problematic when it is frst mentioned turns out
to be easily resolved. Sometimes the reverse happens and a seemingly
minor concern brings forth much larger concerns.
The following is a description of different types of concerns and how
they affect individuals and the group.
Concerns which can be addressed and resolved by making small changes
in the proposal can be called minor concerns. The person
supports the proposal, but has an idea for improvement.
When a person disagrees with the proposal in part, but consents to the
overall idea, the person has a reservation. The person is not
completely satisfed with the proposal, but is generally supportive.
This kind of concern can usually be resolved through discussion.
Sometimes, it is enough for the person to express the concern and feel
that it was heard, without any actual resolution.
When a person does not agree with the proposal, the group allows that
person to try and persuade it to see the wisdom of the
disagreement. If the group is not persuaded or the disagreement
cannot be resolved, the person might choose to stand aside and
allow the group to go forward. The person and the group are
agreeing to disagree, regarding each point of view with mutual
respect. Occasionally, it is a concern which has no resolution;
the person does not feel the need to block the decision, but
wants to express the concern and lack of support for the
proposal.
A blocking concern must be based on a generally recognized principle,
not personal preference, or it must be essential to the entire group's
well-being. Before a concern is considered to be blocking, the group
must have already accepted the validity of the concern and a
reasonable attempt must have been made to resolve it. If legitimate
concerns remain unresolved and the person has not agreed to stand
aside, consensus is blocked.
__________________________________________________________________________
4 The Art of Evaluation
Meetings can often be a time when some people experience feelings of
frustration or confusion. There is always room for improvement in the
structure of the process and/or in the dynamics of the group. Often,
there is no time to talk directly about group interaction during the
meeting. Reserve time at the end of the meeting to allow some of these
issues and feelings to be expressed.
Evaluation is very useful when using consensus. It is worth the time.
Evaluations need not take long, five to ten minutes is often enough.
It is not a discussion, nor is it an opportunity to comment on each
other's statements. Do not reopen discussion on an agenda item.
Evaluation is a special time to listen to each other and learn about
each other. Think about how the group interacts and how to improve the
process.
Be sure to include the evaluation comments in the notes of the
meeting. This is important for two reasons. Over time, if the same
evaluation comments are made again and again, this is an indication
that the issue behind the comments needs to be addressed. This can be
accomplished by placing this issue on the agenda for the next meeting.
Also, when looking back at notes from meetings long ago, evaluation
comments can often reveal a great deal about what actually happened,
beyond what decisions were made and reports given. They give a glimpse
into complex interpersonal dynamics.
Purpose of Evaluation
Evaluation provides a forum to address procedural flaws, inappropriate
behavior, facilitation problems, logistical difficulties, overall
tone, etc. Evaluation is not a time to reopen discussion, make
decisions or attempt to resolve problems, but rather, to make
statements, express feelings, highlight problems, and suggest
solutions in a spirit of cooperation and trust. To help foster
communication, it is better if each criticism is coupled with a
specific suggestion for improvement. Also, always speak for oneself.
Do not attempt to represent anyone else.
Encourage everyone who participated in the meeting to take part in the
evaluation. Make comments on what worked and what did not. Expect
differing opinions. It is generally not useful to repeat other's
comments. Evaluations prepare the group for better future meetings.
When the process works well, the group responds supportively in a
difficult situation, or the facilitator does an especially good job,
note it, and appreciate work well done.
Do not attempt to force evaluation. This will cause superficial or
irrelevant comments. On the other hand, do not allow evaluations to
run on. Be sure to take each comment seriously and make an attempt, at
a later time, to resolve or implement them. Individuals who feel their
suggestions are ignored or disrespected will lose trust and interest
in the group.
For gatherings, conferences, conventions or large meetings, the group
might consider having short evaluations after each section, in
addition to the one at the end of the event. Distinct aspects on which
the group might focus include: the process itself, a specific role, a
particular technique, fears and feelings, group dynamics, etc.
At large meetings, written evaluations provide a means for everyone to
respond and record comments and suggestions which might otherwise be
lost. Some people feel more comfortable writing their evaluations
rather than saying them. Plan the questions well, stressing what was
learned, what was valuable, and what could have been better and how.
An evaluation committee allows an opportunity for the presenters,
facilitators, and/or coordinators to get together after the meeting to
review evaluation comments, consider suggestions for improvement, and
possibly prepare an evaluation report.
Review and evaluation bring a sense of completion to the meeting. A
good evaluation will pull the experience together, remind everyone of
the group's unity of purpose, and provide an opportunity for closing
comments.
Uses of Evaluation
There are at least ten ways in which evaluation helps improve
meetings. Evaluations:
* Improve the process by analysis of what happened, why it happened,
and how it might be improved
* Examine how certain attitudes and statements might have caused
various problems and encourage special care to prevent them from
recurring
* Foster a greater understanding of group dynamics and encourage a
method of group learning or learning from each other
* Allow the free expression of feelings
* Expose unconscious behavior or attitudes which interfere with the
process
* Encourage the sharing of observations and acknowledge associations
with society
* Check the usefulness and effectiveness of techniques and
procedures
* Acknowledge good work and give appreciation to each other
* Reflect on the goals set for the meeting and whether they were
attained
* Examine various roles, suggest ways to improve them, and create
new ones as needed
* Provide an overall sense of completion and closure to the meeting
Types of Evaluation Questions
It is necessary to be aware of the way in which questions are asked
during evaluation. The specific wording can control the scope and
focus of consideration and affect the level of participation. It can
cause responses which focus on what was good and bad, or right and
wrong, rather than on what worked and what needed improvement. Focus
on learning and growing. Avoid blaming. Encourage diverse opinions.
Some sample questions for an evaluation:
* Were members uninterested or bored with the agenda, reports, or
discussion?
* Did members withdraw or feel isolated?
* Is attendance low? If so, why?
* Are people arriving late or leaving early? If so, why?
* How was the overall tone or atmosphere?
* Was there an appropriate use of resources?
* Were the logistics (such as date, time, or location) acceptable?
* What was the most important experience of the event?
* What was the least important experience of the event?
* What was the high point? What was the low point?
* What did you learn?
* What expectations did you have at the beginning and to what degree
were they met? How did they change?
* What goals did you have and to what degree were they accomplished?
* What worked well? Why?
* What did not work so well? How could it have been improved?
* What else would you suggest be changed or improved, and how?
* What was overlooked or left out?
__________________________________________________________________________
5 Roles
A role is a function of process, not content. Roles are used during a
meeting according to the needs of the situation. Not all roles are
useful at every meeting, nor does each role have to be filled by a
separate person. Formal Consensus functions more smoothly if the
person filling a role has some experience, therefore is desirable to
rotate roles. Furthermore, one who has experienced a role is more
likely to be supportive of whomever currently has that role.
Experience in each role also encourages confidence and participation.
It is best, therefore, for the group to encourage everyone to
experience each role.
Agenda Planners
A well planned agenda is an important tool for a smooth meeting,
although it does not guarantee it. Experience has shown that there is
a definite improvement in the flow and pace of a meeting if several
people get together prior to the start of the meeting and propose an
agenda. In smaller groups, the facilitator often proposes an agenda.
The agenda planning committee has six tasks:
* collect agenda items
* arrange them
* assign presenters
* brainstorm discussion techniques
* assign time limits
* write up the proposed agenda
There are at least four sources of agenda items:
* suggestions from members
* reports or proposals from committees
* business from the last meeting
* standard agenda items, including:
+ introduction
+ agenda review
+ review notes
+ break
+ announcements
+ decision review
+ evaluation
Once all the agenda items have been collected, they are listed in an
order which seems efficient and appropriate. Planners need to be
cautious that items at the top of the agenda tend to use more than
their share of time, thereby limiting the time available for the rest.
Each group has different needs. Some groups work best taking care of
business first, then addressing the difficult items. Other groups
might find it useful to take on the most difficult work first and
strictly limit the time or let it take all it needs. The following are
recommendations for keeping the focus of attention on the agenda:
* alternate long and short, heavy and light items
* place reports before their related proposals
* take care of old business before addressing new items
* consider placing items which might generate a sense of
accomplishment early in the meeting
* alternate presenters
* be flexible
Usually, each item already has a presenter. If not, assign one.
Generally, it is not wise for facilitators to present reports or
proposals. However, it is convenient for facilitators to present some
of the standard agenda items.
For complex or especially controversial items, the agenda planners
could suggest various options for group discussion techniques. This
may be helpful to the facilitator.
Next, assign time limits for each item. It is important to be
realistic, being careful to give each item enough time to be fully
addressed without being unfair to other items. Generally, it is not
desirable to propose an agenda which exceeds the desired overall
meeting time limit.
The last task is the writing of the proposed agenda so all can see it
and refer to it during the meeting. Each item is listed in order,
along with its presenter and time limit.
The following agenda is an example of how an agenda is structured and
what information is included in it. It shows the standard agenda
items, the presenters, the time limits and the order in which they
will be considered. It also shows one way in which reports and
proposals can be presented, but each group can structure this part of
the meeting in whatever way suits its needs. This model does not show
the choices of techniques for group discussion which the agenda
planners might have considered.
Standard Agenda
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Agenda Item Presenter Time
INTRODUCTION Facilitator 5 min
AGENDA REVIEW Facilitator 5 min
REVIEW NOTES Notetaker 5 min
REPORTS 20 min
Previous activities
Standing committees
PROPOSALS 15 min
Old business
BREAK 5 min
REPORTS 10 min
Informational
PROPOSALS 30 min
New business
ANNOUNCEMENTS 5 min
Pass hat
Next meeting
REVIEW DECISIONS Notetaker 5 min
EVALUATION 10 min
CLOSING Facilitator 5 min
TOTAL 2 hours
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Facilitator
The word facilitate means to make easy. A facilitator conducts group
business and guides the Formal Consensus process so that it flows
smoothly. Rotating facilitation from meeting to meeting shares
important skills among the members. If everyone has firsthand
knowledge about facilitation, it will help the flow of all meetings.
Co-facilitation, or having two (or more) people facilitate a meeting,
is recommended. Having a woman and a man share the responsibilities
encourages a more balanced meeting. Also, an inexperienced facilitator
may apprentice with a more experienced one. Try to use a variety of
techniques throughout the meeting. And remember, a little bit of humor
can go a long way in easing tension during a long, difficult meeting.
Good facilitation is based upon the following principles:
Non-Directive Leadership
Facilitators accept responsibility for moving through the agenda in
the allotted time, guiding the process, and suggesting alternate or
additional techniques. In this sense, they do lead the group. However,
they do not give their personal opinions nor do they attempt to direct
the content of the discussion. If they want to participate, they must
clearly relinquish the role and speak as an individual. During a
meeting, individuals are responsible for expressing their own concerns
and thoughts. Facilitators, on the other hand, are responsible for
addressing the needs of the group. They need to be aware of the group
dynamics and constantly evaluate whether the discussion is flowing
well. There may be a need for a change in the discussion technique.
They need to be diligent about the fair distribution of attention,
being sure to limit those who are speaking often and offering
opportunities to those who are not speaking much or at all. It follows
that one person cannot simultaneously give attention to the needs of
the group and think about a personal response to a given situation.
Also, it is not appropriate for the facilitator to give a particular
point of view or dominate the discussion. This does not build trust,
especially in those who do not agree with the facilitator.
Clarity of Process
The facilitator is responsible for leading the meeting openly so that
everyone present is aware of the process and how to participate. This
means it is important to constantly review what just happened, what is
about to happen, and how it will happen. Every time a new discussion
technique is introduced, explain how it will work and what is to be
accomplished. This is both educational and helps new members
participate more fully.
Agenda Contract
The facilitator is responsible for honoring the agenda contract. The
facilitator keeps the questions and discussion focused on the agenda
item. Be gentle, but firm, because fairness dictates that each agenda
item gets only the time allotted. The agenda contract is made when the
agenda is reviewed and accepted. This agreement includes the items on
the agenda, the order in which they are considered, and the time
allotted to each. Unless the whole group agrees to change the agenda,
the facilitator is obligated to keep the contract. The decision to
change the agenda must be a consensus, with little or no discussion.
At the beginning of the meeting, the agenda is presented to the whole
group and reviewed, item by item. Any member can add an item if it has
been omitted. While every agenda suggestion must be included in the
agenda, it does not necessarily get as much time as the presenter
wants. Time ought to be divided fairly, with individuals recognizing
the fairness of old items generally getting more time than new items
and urgent items getting more time than items which can wait until the
next meeting, etc. Also, review the suggested presenters and time
limits. If anything seems inappropriate or unreasonable, adjustments
may be made. Once the whole agenda has been reviewed and consented to,
the agenda becomes a contract. The facilitator is obligated to follow
the order and time limits. This encourages members to be on time to
meetings.
Good Will
Always try to assume good will. Assume every statement and action is
sincerely intended to benefit the group. Assume that each member
understands the group's purpose and accepts the agenda as a contract.
Often, when we project our feelings and expectations onto others, we
influence their actions. If we treat others as though they are trying
to get attention, disrupt meetings, or pick fights, they will often
fulfill our expectations. A resolution to conflict is more likely to
occur if we act as though there will be one. This is especially true
if someone is intentionally trying to cause trouble or who is
emotionally unhealthy. Do not attack the person, but rather, assume
good will and ask the person to explain to the group how that person's
statements or actions are in the best interest of the group. It is
also helpful to remember to separate the actor from the action. While
the behavior may be unacceptable, the person is not bad. Avoid
accusing the person of being the way they behave. Remember, no one has
the answer. The group's work is the search for the best and most
creative process, one which fosters a mutually satisfying resolution
to any concern which may arise.
Peacekeeper
The role of peacekeeper is most useful in large groups or when very
touchy, controversial topics are being discussed. A person who is
willing to remain somewhat aloof and is not personally invested in the
content of the discussion would be a good candidate for peacekeeper.
This person is selected without discussion by all present at the
beginning of the meeting. If no one wants this role, or if no one can
be selected without objection, proceed without one, recognizing that
the facilitator's job will most likely be more difficult.
This task entails paying attention to the overall mood or tone of the
meeting. When tensions increase dramatically and angers flare out of
control, the peacekeeper interrupts briefly to remind the group of its
common goals and commitment to cooperation. The most common way to
accomplish this is a call for a few moments of silence.
The peacekeeper is the only person with prior permission to interrupt
a speaker or speak without first being recognized by the facilitator.
Also, it is important to note that the peacekeeper's comments are
always directed at the whole group, never at one individual or small
group within the larger group. Keep comments short and to the point.
The peacekeeper may always, of course, point out when the group did
something well. People always like to be acknowledged for positive
behavior.
Advocate
Like the peacekeeper, advocates are selected without discussion at the
beginning of the meeting. If, because of strong emotions, someone is
unable to be understood, the advocate is called upon to help. The
advocate would interrupt the meeting, and invite the individual to
literally step outside the meeting for some one-on-one discussion. An
upset person can talk to someone with whom they feel comfortable. This
often helps them make clear what the concern is and how it relates to
the best interest of the group. Assume the individual is acting in
good faith. Assume the concern is in the best interest of the group.
While they are doing this, everyone else might take a short break, or
continue with other agenda items. When they return, the meeting (after
completing the current agenda item) hears from the advocate. The
intent here is the presentation of the concern by the advocate rather
than the upset person so the other group members might hear it without
the emotional charge. This procedure is a last resort, to be used only
when emotions are out of control and the person feels unable to
successfully express an idea.
Timekeeper
The role of timekeeper is very useful in almost all meetings. One is
selected at the beginning of the meeting to assist the facilitator in
keeping within the time limits set in the agenda contract. The skill
in keeping time is the prevention of an unnecessary time pressure
which might interfere with the process. This can be accomplished by
keeping everyone aware of the status of time remaining during the
discussion. Be sure to give ample warning towards the end of the time
limit so the group can start to bring the discussion to a close or
decide to rearrange the agenda to allow more time for the current
topic. There is nothing inherently wrong with going over time as long
as everyone consents.
Public Scribe
The role of public scribe is simply the writing, on paper or
blackboard, of information for the whole group to see. This person
primarily assists the facilitator by taking a task which might
otherwise distract the facilitator and interfere with the overall flow
of the meeting. This role is particularly useful during brainstorms,
reportbacks from small groups, or whenever it would help the group for
all to see written information.
Notetaker
The importance of a written record of the meetings cannot be
overstated. The written record, sometimes called notes or minutes, can
help settle disputes of memory or verify past decisions. Accessible
notes allow absent members to participate in ongoing work. Useful
items to include in the notes are:
* date and attendance
+ agenda
+ brief notes (highlights, statistics...)
+ reports
+ discussion
* verbatim notes
+ proposals (with revisions)
+ decisions (with concerns listed)
+ announcements
+ next meeting time and place
+ evaluation comments
After each decision is made, it is useful to have the notetaker read
the notes aloud to ensure accuracy. At the end of the meeting, it is
also helpful to have the notetaker present to the group a review of
all decisions. In larger groups, it is often useful to have two
notetakers simultaneously, because everyone, no matter how skilled,
hears information and expresses it differently. Notetakers are
responsible for making sure the notes are recorded accurately, and are
reproduced and distributed according to the desires of the group
(e.g., mailed to everyone, handed out at the next meeting, filed,
etc.).
Doorkeeper
Doorkeepers are selected in advance of the meeting and need to arrive
early enough to familiarize themselves with the physical layout of the
space and to receive any last minute instructions from the
facilitator. They need to be prepared to miss the first half hour of
the meeting. Prior to the start of the meeting, the doorkeeper
welcomes people, distributes any literature connected to the business
of the meeting, and informs them of any pertinent information (the
meeting will start fifteen minutes late, the bathrooms are not
wheelchair accessible, etc.).
A doorkeeper is useful, especially if people tend to be late. When the
meeting begins, they continue to be available for latecomers. They
might briefly explain what has happened so far and where the meeting
is currently on the agenda. The doorkeeper might suggest to the
latecomers that they refrain from participating in the current agenda
item and wait until the next item before participating. This avoids
wasting time, repeating discussion, or addressing already resolved
concerns. Of course, this is not a rigid rule. Use discretion and be
respectful of the group's time.
Experience has shown this role to be far more useful than it might at
first appear, so experiment with it and discover if meetings can
become more pleasant and productive because of the friendship and care
which is expressed through the simple act of greeting people as they
arrive at the meeting.
__________________________________________________________________________
6 Techniques
Facilitation Techniques
There are a great many techniques to assist the facilitator in
managing the agenda and group dynamics. The following are just a few
of the more common and frequently used techniques available to the
facilitator. Be creative and adaptive. Different situations require
different techniques. With experience will come an understanding of
how they affect group dynamics and when is the best time to use them.
Equalizing Participation
The facilitator is responsible for the fair distribution of attention
during meetings. Facilitators call the attention of the group to one
speaker at a time. The grammar school method is the most common
technique for choosing the next speaker. The facilitator recognizes
each person in the order in which hands are raised. Often, inequities
occur because the attention is dominated by an individual or class of
individuals. This can occur because of socialized behavioral problems
such as racism, sexism, or the like, or internal dynamics such as
experience, seniority, fear, shyness, disrespect, ignorance of the
process, etc. Inequities can be corrected in many creative ways. For
example, if men are speaking more often than women, the facilitator
can suggest a pause after each speaker, the women counting to five
before speaking, the men counting to ten. In controversial situations,
the facilitator can request that three speakers speak for the
proposal, and three speak against it. If the group would like to avoid
having the facilitator select who speaks next, the group can
self-select by asking the last speaker to pass an object, a talking
stick, to the next. Even more challenging, have each speaker stand
before speaking, and begin when there is only one person standing.
These are only a handful of the many possible problems and solutions
that exist. Be creative. Invent your own.
Listing
To help the discussion flow more smoothly, those who want to speak can
silently signal the facilitator, who would add the person's name to a
list of those wishing to speak, and call on them in that order.
Stacking
If many people want to speak at the same time, it is useful to ask all
those who would like to speak to raise their hands. Have them count
off, and then have them speak in that order. At the end of the stack,
the facilitator might call for another stack or try another technique.
Pacing
The pace or flow of the meeting is the responsibility of the
facilitator. If the atmosphere starts to become tense, choose
techniques which encourage balance and cooperation. If the meeting is
going slowly and people are becoming restless, suggest a stretch or
rearrange the agenda.
Checking the Process
If the flow of the meeting is breaking down or if one person or small
group seems to be dominating, anyone can call into question the
technique being used and suggest an alternative.
Silence
If the pace is too fast, if energies and tensions are high, if people
are speaking out of turn or interrupting one another, it is
appropriate for anyone to suggest a moment of silence to calm and
refocus energy.
Taking a Break
In the heat of discussion, people are usually resistant to
interrupting the flow to take a break, but a wise facilitator knows,
more often than not, that a five minute break will save a frustrating
half hour or more of circular discussion and fruitless debate.
Call For Consensus
The facilitator, or any member recognized to speak by the facilitator,
can call for a test for consensus. To do this, the facilitator asks if
there are any unresolved concerns which remain unaddressed. (See page
13.)
Summarizing
The facilitator might choose to focus what has been said by
summarizing. The summary might be made by the facilitator, the
notetaker, or anyone else appropriate. This preempts a common problem,
in which the discussion becomes circular, and one after another,
speakers repeat each other.
Reformulating the Proposal
After a long discussion, it sometimes happens that the proposal
becomes modified without any formal decision. The facilitator needs to
recognize this and take time to reformulate the proposal with the new
information, modifications, or deletions. Then the proposal is
presented to the group so that everyone can be clear about what is
being considered. Again, this might be done by the facilitator, the
notetaker, or anyone else.
Stepping out of Role
If the facilitator wants to become involved in the discussion or has
strong feelings about a particular agenda item, the facilitator can
step out of the role and participate in the discussion, allowing
another member to facilitate during that time.
Passing the Clipboard
Sometimes information needs to be collected during the meeting. To
save time, circulate a clipboard to collect this information. Once
collected, it can be entered into the written record and/or presented
to the group by the facilitator.
Polling (Straw Polls)
The usefulness of polling within consensus is primarily clarification
of the relative importance of several issues. It is an especially
useful technique when the facilitator is confused or uncertain about
the status of a proposal and wants some clarity to be able to suggest
what might be the next process technique. Polls are not decisions,
they are non-binding referenda. All too often, straw polls are used
when the issues are completely clear and the majority wants to
intimidate the minority into submission by showing overwhelming
support rather than to discuss the issues and resolve the concerns.
Clear and simple questions are best. Polls that involve three or more
choices can be especially manipulative. Use with discretion.
Censoring
(This technique and the next are somewhat different from the others.
They may not be appropriate for some groups.) If someone speaks out of
turn consistently, the facilitator warns the individual at least twice
that if the interruptions do not stop, the facilitator will declare
that person censored. This means the person will not be permitted to
speak for the rest of this agenda item. If the interrupting behavior
has been exhibited over several agenda items, then the censoring could
be for a longer period of time. This technique is meant to be used at
the discretion of the facilitator. If the facilitator censors someone
and others in the meeting voice disapproval, it is better for the
facilitator to step down from the role and let someone else
facilitate, rather than get into a discussion about the ability and
judgement of the facilitator. The rationale is the disruptive behavior
makes facilitation very difficult, is disrespectful and, since it is
assumed that everyone observed the behavior, the voicing of
disapproval about a censoring indicates lack of confidence in the
facilitation rather than support for the disruptive behavior.
Expulsion
If an individual still acts very disruptively, the facilitator may
confront the behavior. Ask the person to explain the reasons for this
behavior, how it is in the best interest of the group, how it relates
to the group's purpose, and how it is in keeping with the goals and
principles. If the person is unable to answer these questions or if
the answers indicate disagreement with the common purpose, then the
facilitator can ask the individual to withdraw from the meeting.
Group Discussion Techniques
It is often assumed that the best form of group discussion is that
which has one person at a time speak to the whole group. This is true
for some discussions. But, sometimes, other techniques of group
discussion can be more productive and efficient than whole group
discussion. The following are some of the more common and frequently
used techniques. These could be suggested by anyone at the meeting.
Therefore, it is a good idea if everyone is familiar with these
techniques. Again, be creative and adaptive. Different situations
require different techniques. Only experience reveals how each one
affects group dynamics or the best time to use it.
Identification
It is good to address each other by name. One way to learn names is to
draw a seating plan, and as people go around and introduce themselves,
write their names on it. Later, refer to the plan and address people
by their names. In large groups, name tags can be helpful. Also, when
people speak, it is useful for them to identify themselves so all can
gradually learn each others' names.
Whole Group
The value of whole group discussion is the evolution of a group idea.
A group idea is not simply the sum of individual ideas, but the result
of the interaction of ideas during discussion. Whole group discussion
can be unstructured and productive. It can also be very structured,
using various facilitation techniques to focus it. Often, whole group
discussion does not produce maximum participation or a diversity of
ideas. During whole group discussion, fewer people get to speak, and,
at times, the attitude of the group can be dominated by an idea, a
mood, or a handful of people.
Small Group
Breaking into smaller groups can be very useful. These small groups
can be diads or triads or even larger. They can be selected randomly
or self-selected. If used well, in a relatively short amount of time
all participants have the opportunity to share their own point of
view. Be sure to set clear time limits and select a notetaker for each
group. When the larger group reconvenes, the notetakers relate the
major points and concerns of their group. Sometimes, notetakers can be
requested to add only new ideas or concerns and not repeat something
already covered in another report. It is also helpful for the scribe
to write these reports so all can see the cumulative result and be
sure every idea and concern gets on the list.
Brainstorming
This is a very useful technique when ideas need to be solicited from
the whole group. The normal rule of waiting to speak until the
facilitator recognizes you is suspended and everyone is encouraged to
call out ideas to be written by the scribe for all to see. It is
helpful if the atmosphere created is one in which all ideas, no matter
how unusual or incomplete, are appropriate and welcomed. This is a
situation in which suggestions can be used as catalysts, with ideas
building one upon the next, generating very creative possibilities.
Avoid evaluating each other's ideas during this time.
Go-rounds
This is a simple technique that encourages participation. The
facilitator states a question and then goes around the room inviting
everyone to answer briefly. This is not an open discussion. This is an
opportunity to individually respond to specific questions, not to
comment on each other's responses or make unrelated remarks.
Fishbowl
The fishbowl is a special form of small group discussion. Several
members representing differing points of view meet in an inner circle
to discuss the issue while everyone else forms an outer circle and
listens. At the end of a predetermined time, the whole group
reconvenes and evaluates the fishbowl discussion. An interesting
variation: first, put all the men in the fishbowl, then all the women,
and they discuss the same topics.
Active Listening
If the group is having a hard time understanding a point of view,
someone might help by active listening. Listen to the speaker, then
repeat back what was heard and ask the speaker if this accurately
reflects what was meant.
Caucusing
A caucus might be useful to help a multifaceted conflict become
clearer by unifying similar perspectives or defining specific points
of departure without the focus of the whole group. It might be that
only some people attend a caucus, or it might be that all are expected
to participate in a caucus. The difference between caucuses and small
groups is that caucuses are composed of people with similar
viewpoints, whereas small group discussions are more useful if they
are made up of people with diverse viewpoints or even a random
selection of people.
__________________________________________________________________________
Glossary
agenda contract
The agenda contract is made when the agenda is reviewed and accepted.
This agreement includes the items on the agenda, the order in which
they are considered, and the time allotted to each. Unless the whole
group agrees to change the agenda, the facilitator is obligated to
keep to the contract. The decision to change the agenda must be a
consensus, with little or no discussion.
agreement
Complete agreement, with no unresolved concerns.
block
If the allotted agenda time has been spent trying to achieve
consensus, and unresolved legitimate concerns remain, the proposal may
be considered blocked, or not able to be adopted at this meeting.
concern
A point of departure or disagreement with a proposal.
conflict
The expression of disagreement, which brings into focus diverse
viewpoints, and provides the opportunity to explore their strengths
and weaknesses.
consensus
A decisionmaking process whereby decisions are reached when all
members present consent to a proposal. This process does not assume
everyone must be in complete agreement. When differences remain after
discussion, individuals can agree to disagree, that is, give their
consent by standing aside, and allow the proposal to be accepted by
the group.
consent
Acceptance of the proposal, not necessarily agreement. Individuals are
responsible for expressing their ideas, concerns and objections.
Silence, in response to a call for consensus, signifies consent.
Silence is not complete agreement; it is acceptance of the proposal.
decision
The end product of an idea that started as a proposal and evolved to
become a plan of action accepted by the whole group.
evaluation
A group analysis at the end of a meeting about interpersonal dynamics
during decisionmaking. This is a time to allow feelings to be
expressed, with the goal of improving the functioning of future
meetings. It is not a discussion or debate, nor should anyone comment
on another's evaluation.
meeting
An occasion in which people come together and, in an orderly way, make
decisions.
methods of decisionmaking
autocracy
one person makes the decisions for everyone
oligarchy
a few people make the decisions for everyone
representative democracy
a few people are elected to make the decisions for everyone majority
rule democracy the majority makes the decisions for everyone
consensus
everyone makes the decisions for everyone
proposal
A written plan that some members of a group present to the whole group
for discussion and acceptance.
stand aside
To agree to disagree, to be willing to let a proposal be adopted
despite unresolved concerns.
__________________________________________________________________________
Bibliography
a manual for group facilitators
Brian Auvine, Betsy Densmore, Mary Extrom,
Scott Poole, Michel Shanklin
The Center for Confict Resolution: 1977
731 State Street, Madison, WI 53703
A Manual on Nonviolence and Children
Stephanie Judson
Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Peace Committee, Philadelphia
New Society Publishers: 1977
4722 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19143
Beyond Majority Rule
Michael J. Sheeran
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the
Religious Society of Friends: 1983
1515 Cherry Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102
Building United Judgment
A Handbook for Consensus Decision Making
Brian Auvine, Michel Avery,
Barbara Streibel, Lonnie Weiss
The Center for Confict Resolution: 1981
731 State Street, Madison, WI 53703
Civil Disobedience: Theory and Practice
Hugo A. Bedau
Pegasus: 1969
New York, NY
Clearness: Processes for Supporting Individuals &
Groups in Decision-Making
Peter Woodrow
New Society Publishers: 1977, 1984
4722 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19143
In Place of War
American Friends Service Committee
Grossman, NY: 1967
Meeting Facilitation: The No Magic Method
Berit Lakey
New Society Publishers
4722 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19143
More Power Than We Know
The People's Movement Toward Democracy
Dave Dellinger
Anchor Press/Doubleday: 1976
Garden City, NY
No Bosses Here!
a manual on working
collectively and cooperatively (2nd ed.)
Karen Brandow, Jim McDonnell, and
Vocations for Social Change
Alyson Publications 1981
P.O. Box 2783 Boston, MA 02208
Vocations for Social Change
PO Box 211, Essex Station, Boston, MA 02112
Nonviolence In America
A Documentary History
Staughton Lynd, ed.
Bobbs-Merrill, NY: 1966
Nonviolent Direct Action
A. Paul Hare and Herbert H. Blumberg
Corpus, Washington: 1968
Nonviolent Resistance
Mohandas Ghandi
Schocken: 1961
New York, NY
Peace & Power
Charlene Eldridge Wheeler, Peggy L. Chinn
Buffalo, NY, 1984
People With People
A Compendium of Group Process Theories
John D. Swanson, ed.
Humanitas: 1977
PO Box 196, Jamestown, RI 02835
Resource Manual for a Living Revolution
A Handbook of Skills and Tools for Social Change Activists
Virginia Coover, Ellen Deacon,
Charles Esser, Christopher Moore
New Society Publishers: 1985
4722 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19143
The Politics of Nonviolent Action
Gene Sharp
Porter Sargent: 1973
Boston, MA
War Resisters League Organizer's Manual
Edited by Ed Hedemann
War Resisters League: 1981
339 Lafayette Street, New York, NY 10012
We Cannot Live Without Our Lives
Barbara Deming
Grossman: 1974
New York, NY
__________________________________________________________________________
Index
(these numbers refer to pages in the printed version of On Conflict and
Consensus)
active listening 56
active participation 25
advocate 44-45
agenda 11, 17, 19, 31, 34, 37-39, 40, 42, 45-47, 49, 52-53
agenda contract 17, 20, 42-43, 45
agenda planner 37, 39
block 17, 20, 28-30
blocking concern 29, 30
brainstorming 14, 55
break 38, 40, 45, 51
caucus 56
censoring 53
checking the process 51
clarifying questions 12, 15
clarity of process 42
commitment 2, 21-22, 25, 44
cooperation 2, 5, 8, 22, 24, 27-28, 32, 44, 50
decisionmaking 1-3, 5, 7-9, 21, 23, 26-27, 41
disrespect 32, 49, 53
doorkeeper 47
empowerment 5, 23-24
equal access to power 5, 26
equalizing participation 49
evaluation 20, 31-34, 38, 40, 46
expulsion 53
facilitator 11-17, 19, 28, 32-33, 37, 39-41-47, 49-56
facilitation techniques 49
fishbowl 56
go-rounds 56
good will 8, 25, 43
group discussion techniques 10, 15, 19, 39, 54
identification 54
introduction 10-11, 38, 40
listing 50
meeting 2, 6, 11, 17, 19-20, 29, 31-56
non-directive leadership 41
notetaker 14, 40, 46
pacing 50
participation 2-3, 5, 9, 25, 27, 34, 37, 49, 55-56
passing the clipboard 52
patience 7, 25-26
peacekeeper 44
polling 52
power 2, 5, 17, 23, 26, 29
public scribe 46
reformulating the proposal 52
reservation 29
respect 3, 5, 22, 23, 25-27, 30, 32, 46, 49, 53
role 6, 19, 27, 32, 34, 37-48, 52-53
silence 13, 44, 51
small group 7, 44, 46, 51, 55
social prejudice 27
stacking 50
standard agenda 40
stand aside 16, 29-30,
stepping out of role 52
structure 2-3, 6, 9-10-11, 26-27, 31, 39, 55
summarizing 51
taking a break 51
techniques 3, 6, 10-11, 15, 19, 34, 38-39, 41, 49-56
timekeeper 45
unity of purpose 19, 23
whole group 5-6, 13, 16-17, 24, 28, 42, 44, 46, 54-56
_________________________________________________________________
Front Matter from the Printed Book
C.T. wrote the first edition of this book for the Pledge of Resistance
in Boston when it had over 3500 signers and 150 affnity groups. All
policy decisions for the organization were made at monthly
spokesmeetings, involving at least one spokesperson from each affnity
group. Members from the coordinating committee were charged with
managing daily affairs. Spokesmeetings were often attended by over one
hundred people; they were usually seventy strong. For almost two years
the process of consensus worked well for the Pledge, empowering very
large numbers of people to engage confdently in nonviolent direct
action. The forerunner of the model of consensus outlined in this book
was used throughout this period at spokesmeetings and, particularly
well, at the weekly coordinators meetings. However, it was never
systematically defned and written down or formally adopted.
For over two years, C.T. attended monthly spokesmeetings, weekly
coordinating meetings, and uncounted committee meetings. He saw the
need to develop a consistent way to introduce new members to
consensus. At frst, he looked for existing literature to aid in
conducting workshops on the consensus process. He was unable to fnd
any suitable material, so he set out to develop his own.
The frst edition of this book is the result of a year of research into
consensus in general and the Pledge process in particular. It was
mostly distributed to individuals who belonged to various groups
already struggling to use some form of consensus process. The fourth
printing included an introduction which added the concept of secular
consensus. The secular label distinguishes this model of consensus
from both the more traditional model found in faith-based communities
and the rather informal consensus commonly found in progressive
groups.
Unfortunately, the label of secular consensus gave the impression that
we were denying any connection with spirituality. We wanted to clearly
indicate that the model of consensus we were proposing was distinct,
but we did not want to exclude the valuable work of faith-based
communities.
Therefore, since the sixth printing we have used the name Formal
Consensus because it adequately defnes this distinction. We hope that
Formal Consensus will continue to be an important contribution to the
search for an effective, more unifying, democratic decisionmaking
process.
Formal Consensus is a specifc kind of decisionmaking. It must be
defned by the group using it. It provides a foundation, structure, and
collection of techniques for effcient and productive group
discussions. The foundation is the commonly-held principles and
decisions which created the group originally. The structure is
predetermined, although fexible. The agenda is formal and extremely
important. The roles, techniques, and skills necessary for smooth
operation must be accessible to and developed in all members.
Evaluation of the process must happen on a consistent and frequent
basis, as a tool for self-education and self-management. Above all,
Formal Consensus must be taught. It is unreasonable to expect people
to be familiar with this process already. In general, cooperative
nonviolent confict resolution does not exist in modern North American
society. These skills must be developed in what is primarily a
competitive environment. Only time will tell if, in fact, this model
will fourish and prove itself effective and worthwhile.
We are now convinced more than ever that the model presented in this
book is profoundly signifcant for the future of our species. We must
learn to live together cooperatively, resolving our conficts
nonviolently and making our decisions consensually. We must learn to
value diversity and respect all life, not just on a physical level,
but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. We are all in this
together.
-- C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein
-- August 1991
__________________________________________________________________________
[INLINE]
Food Not Bombs Publishing
295 Forest Avenue #314
Portland, ME 04101
1.800.569.4054
(c) C.T. Butler, 1987.
If you'd prefer a pretty printed book with a binding that lays flat
for use during meetings, or if you'd like to arrange a workshop or
consultation, contact C.T. The book costs $15 US, including postage.
If you need a freelance typographer and page production artist,
contact Amy.
C.T. Butler's email: [log in to unmask]
Amy Rothstein's email: [log in to unmask]
|
