Neil Baker Consulting and Coaching
Neil J. Baker M.D.
  • What
  • Why
  • Blog
  • Contact

We have a consensus!....?

6/18/2014

 
Picture
One method of group decision making I have observed, not uncommonly, is for someone to vigorously put forth a proposed decision and look around the room.

A few people remain silent and still, a few nod their heads, and maybe one or two exclaim “Yes.” Then the person who wants the decision announces: "We have a consensus!" (After all, "everyone agreed--no one stated any objections.")

Poor implementation and outcomes in such situations are quite likely. High quality consensus requires that each person give explicit indication of being able both to live with the decision and to fully commit to successful implementation—even if not fully satisfied. This occurs only with balanced, fair, and rational discussion in which everyone participates and everyone feels heard. (Chris Mcgoff The Primes, 2012 and Peter Scholtes et al The Team Handbook, 1989)

Poor quality consensus decisions result from lack of a shared definition of consensus, lack of a systematic and clear way for each person to indicate if they are in consensus, and arguments and debates as opposed to assuring all opinions are fully heard. Also, use of traditional definitions like "no one voices objections," "everyone agrees with everything," "everyone is fully satisfied," or "majority rules" are not effective and perhaps even destructive to the best efforts. (McGoff, 2012)

Groups have used a wide variety of methods for each person to specifically indicate if they are in consensus: An example is to use a scale of 1 - 5  with "5" meaning a high level of enthusiasm and "1" meaning no enthusiasm. A cut-off is defined (e.g at a rating of '1" or "2" even from just one person) which means insufficient enthusiasm to commit to implementation. The effort to come to a decision would then stop and dialogue would be restarted. This might lead to revision of the proposed decision or a shift in enthusiasm due to deeper exploration of issues. This iterative process increases the odds of a creative decision and shared motivation for implementation.

High quality consensus decision making is not easy.
It requires high quality dialogue so that decisions reflect the thinking of all group members. The skills for moving back and forth between checking for consensus and dialogue require a good deal of intentional practice over time.


Comments are closed.
    Subscribe
    Subscribe to receive periodic free articles and tools for subscribers only. 

    Categories

    All
    Brain Science
    Decision Making
    Dialogue
    Engagement And Motivation
    Feedback
    Meetings
    Positive Psychology
    Power
    Practice Of Leadership
    Reactivity And Reflection
    Teams
    Tools
    Vision

    Archives

    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    October 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    November 2015
    August 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014


    Contact Neil

Copyright Neil Baker M.D., 2019 all rights reserved
Neil Baker Consulting and Coaching
Bainbridge Island, Washington,
Photos used under Creative Commons from bertknot, ymturner, jurvetson, HikingArtist.com