[consensus] [notes on consensus] [dynamics: making our process work] [why consensus fails]
Food Not Bombs groups use formal consensus as a model for a decision-making process in meetings, as well as in cooking, serving, etc. Here, in a nutshell, are the steps in the consensus decision-making model.
1) Identify the Issue: What are we really trying to resolve? Why are we here? What's it all about? Before we make any decisions, determine just what it is we are trying to decide.
2) Clarify: Before discussing the issue, clarify it with existing information and questions.
3) Discussions: Similarities as well as differences of opinion should be examined. Options should be brainstormed and concerns raised. Avoid details prior to selecting an option.
4) Proposal: Anyone can articulate a proposal, when it appears that a sense of agreement has been reached.
5) Discuss Proposal: Ask questions to clarify proposal. Add friendly amendments to modify the proposal to meet all concerns.
6) Test for Consensus: Check for serious concerns or reservations. If concerns are numerous or critical go back for more discussion.
7) Formal Consensus: Facilitator asks for consensus
and looks around for smiles, thumbs up, wiggling fingers, etc. At this
point, everyone will have:
a) Consensed
b) Stood Aside - Disagreed with the proposal but let it slide.
c) Blocked - Killed the proposal.
Discuss Implementation: assign tasks, work out logistics (perhaps in working groups)
Consensus is a way to make decisions that, let's face it, most people just aren't used to. Using the rhetoric of consensus, and actually using the process all the time, are two different realities.
Oftentimes meetings, say, are much more informal. People raise issues to be put on the agenda, many of which are logistical in nature, and then there's some questions and some discussion, maybe some disagreement, and then someone says I'll do it, and then we move on. We don't necessarily officially talk about going through the steps of the consensus process, but instead do it implicitly, probably because many logistical issues aren't so controversial. Usually experienced (and more vocal) people speak more, while newcomers may remain quiet and perhaps volunteer when more experienced folks say something needs to be done and look around.
But when an issue isn't as mundane as the "who drops off what and where" situations, we recommend that you do stick to the process. Hell, making consensus work for any discussion is preferable and truly empowering.
Making sure everyone has the chance to speak is essential to making Food Not Bombs a truly alternative and radical organization. So learn how consensus works. If going through the steps seems like a drag, and drags on in a mechanical sort of way, figure something else out. But we recommend that the essence of the process be stuck to.
Make sure the facilitator keeps a stack, make sure people raise their hands to speak (so who gets heard doesn't depend on loudness of voice) and make sure everybody understands why it's important to respect the discussion by not interrupting and dominating.
Sticking to the general consensus process from the beginning (or from now on) is highly recommended. Teach new volunteers how things work. Don't expect perfect harmony right away. Learning to cooperate and respect each other is something we must do actively, unlike society's monumental push to make us all compete against one another.
Dynamics: Making Our Process Work
Good dynamics make everybody happy, we get a lot done, and everybody gets to participate. Bad dynamics leave important issues undone so someone has to figure it out later, make people miserable and bitter, and leave some people out of the process while other people dominate. Obviously we want good dynamics. Here are some suggestions...
* Pick a facilitator, timekeeper, and a vibes-watcher (the latter could be the entire group). Rotate these duties so everyone learns the skills, and so people don't feel like there's some "accidental hierarchy forming. Little cliques probably will form in a larger group, and they should be combated vigorously, or at least acknowledged so as to dissuade shit-talking and complaining behind others' backs.
* Communicate, communicate, communicate. Do so openly and honestly. It's better in the end.
Here's a brief outline of the role of each in the consensus process:
* Facilitator: This person guides the group as a whole to outcomes. The facilitator shouldn't be "running" the meeting, but instead moving it along in a direction that the collective as a whole wants. Facilitators generally don't participate that much, if at all, but this is difficult to avoid, as the facilitator is more than likely a regular volunteer. If the facilitator does want to talk a lot on any given agenda item, then passing the facilitator role to another person is recommended.
Note A: Facilitation skills take time to learn, but are invaluable for working in collectives and groups in general. Seeking out training is a great idea.
Note B: The facilitator is instrumental in maintaining effective process with disruptive behavior, and in bringing out people's strengths. Ideally everyone takes responsibility for group process and dynamics. See How to be Constructive, Productive & Generally Nice at a Meeting for examples of these behaviors.
* Timekeeper: This person just informs the group that a particular agenda item's time limit has been reached. Usually the person bringing up a particular agenda item specifies how much time s/he would like to spend on it. When those limits are reached, the group decides whether or not it will continue discussion, or make a proposal right then.
* Vibes-watcher: The vibes-watcher's role is to be alert to feelings of hostility, animosity, and general tensions in the group. S/he should feel free to point out when people are taking too much time on something, or when the energy is negative and the group needs to reaffirm its positive feelings and purpose.
Note A: The vibes-watcher is allowed to interrupt people when they are speaking in order to make pertinent observations. But she should only interrupt when absolutely necessary.
Note B: The vibes-watcher should make sure to separate the action from the actor. Don't criticize the person, but instead point out what seems to be happening, and let people calm down on their own. Also, people should do their best not to take an interruption by the vibes-watcher personally.
Some suggestions for facilitators (i.e. everyone) to help improve dynamics:
* Hand raising: This helps keep loud people from talking over the quiet folks. Just do it.
* Prioritize the voice of women, people of color and quiet folks to encourage their participation and to proactively challenge white privilege, male privilege and dominant behavior patterns.
* Stacking: The facilitator should keep a stack, that is, a list of who has raised their hand to speak. Let people know they are on the stack. That way, they can focus on what other people are saying rather than focusing on being noticed by the facilitator. Interrupt the stack only if someone has something pertinent to what was just said.
Key aspects for making the process positive and productive:
* Respect: Accept objections, trust those who make them to be acting responsibly. Help find ways to satisfy concerns.
* Responsibility: Block consensus only for serious principled objections based on FNB's three principles. Help others to find a way to satisfy your objections.
* Cooperation: Look for areas of agreement and common ground, avoid competitive right/wrong, win/lose thinking. When a stalemate occurs, look for creative alternatives or for the next most acceptable proposals. Avoid arguing for your own way to prevail. Present your ideas clearly, then listen to others and try to advance the group synthesis.
* Creative Conflict: Avoid conflict-reducing techniques like majority votes, averaging or coin-tossing. Try to resolve rather than avoid the matter. Don't abandon an objection for harmony if it is a real problem. Do not try to reward people for standing aside and do not trade off objections.
* The group mind just isn't there. A group thinking process cannot work effectively unless the group is cohesive enough to generate shared attitudes and perceptions. When deep divisions exist with the group, or when members don't value the group's bond over their individual desires, consensus is an exercise in frustration and, often, futility.
* Crisis, Impending Doom. In an emergency where there's no time for discussion, maybe everyone can try to let someone lead. But don't let anyone claim or create perpetual crisis to enlarge their authority.
* Trivial issues. We must not spend half an hour debating whether we shall break for 40 minutes or an hour for lunch. Consensus is a thinking process, so if there's nothing to think about...
* Insufficient Information. You're lost in the wilderness and no one knows the way back, you cannot decide by consensus the correct way to go.
