The Consensus Building Handbook

A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement

Lawrence E. Susskind, Sarah McKearnen, Jennifer Thomas-Lamar

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 1999
• ISBN:
  9781506319230
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Langues et linguistique
• Subtopic: Études sur la communication

This handbook on group decision-making for those wanting to operate in a consensus fashion stresses the advantages of informal, common sense approaches to working together. It describes how any group can put these approaches into practice, and relates numerous examples of situations in which such approaches have been applied.

PART 1

---

A SHORT GUIDE TO CONSENSUS BUILDING

---

AN ALTERNATIVE TO ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER FOR GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND AD HOC ASSEMBLIES THAT WANT TO OPERATE BY CONSENSUS

---

Lawrence Susskind

Let’s compare what this “Short Guide” has to say with what Robert’s Rules of Order requires. Assume that a few dozen people have gotten together, on their own, at a community center because they are upset with a new policy or program recently announced by their local officials. After several impassioned speeches, someone suggests that the group appoint a moderator to “keep order” and ensure that the conversation proceeds effectively. Someone else wants to know how the group will decide what to recommend after they are done debating. “Will we vote?” this person wants to know. At this point, everyone turns to Joe, who has had experience as a moderator. Joe moves to the front of the room and explains that he will follow Robert’s Rules of Order. From that moment on, the conversation takes on a very formal tone.

Instead of just saying what’s on their mind, everyone is forced to frame suggestions in the cumbersome form of motions. These have to be seconded. Efforts to move the question are proceeded by an explanation from Joe about what is and isn’t an acceptable way of doing this. Proposals to table various items are considered, even though everyone hasn’t had a chance to speak. Ultimately, all-or-nothing votes are the only way the group seems able to make a decision.

As the hour passes, fewer and fewer of those in attendance feel capable of expressing their views. They don’t know the rules, and they are intimidated. Every once in a while, someone makes an effort to restate the problem or make a suggestion, but the person is shouted down (“You’re not following Robert’s Rules!”). No one takes responsibility for ensuring that the concerns of everyone in the room are met, especially the needs of those individuals who are least able to present their views effectively. After an hour or so, many people have left. A final proposal is approved by a vote of 55 percent to 45 percent of those remaining.

If the group had followed the procedures spelled out in this “Short Guide to Consensus Building,” the meeting would have been run differently and the result would probably have been a lot more to everyone’s liking. The person at the front of the room would have been a trained facilitator or mediator—a person adept at helping groups build consensus—not a moderator with specialized knowledge about how motions should be made or votes should be taken. His or her job would have been to get agreement at the outset on how the group wanted to proceed. Then, the facilitator would have focused on producing an agreement that could meet the underlying concerns of everyone in the room: no motions, no arcane rituals, and no vote at the end. Instead, the facilitator might have pushed the group to brainstorm (e.g., “Can anyone propose a way of proceeding that meets all the interests we have heard expressed thus far?”). After as thorough a consideration of options as time permitted, the facilitator would ask, “Is there anyone who can’t live with the last version of what has been proposed? If so, what improvement or modification can you suggest that will make it more acceptable to you, while continuing to meet the interests of everyone else with a stake in the issue?” The group would have likely developed a proposal that everyone—or nearly everyone—in the room could support. And participants would leave satisfied that their opinions and needs had been heard, understood, and taken into account.

What’s Wrong with Robert’s Rules?

---

Robert’s Rules of Order was first published in 1870. It was based on the rules and practices of Congress, and presumed that parliamentary procedures (and majority rule) offered the most appropriate model for any and all groups. The author presumed that the Rules of Order would “assist an assembly in accomplishing the work for which it was designed” by “restraining the individual” so that the interests of the group could be met.

In the more than 125 years since Robert’s Rules was first published, many other approaches to group work and organizational activity have emerged. The goal of this “Short Guide” and the full Handbook is to codify the best possible advice to groups and organizations that prefer to operate with broad support, by consensus, rather than simply by majority rule. We believe that something greater than a bare majority achieved through voting is almost always more desirable than majority rule. Moreover, the formalism of parliamentary procedure is particularly unsatisfying and often counterproductive, getting in the way of commonsense solutions. It relies on insider knowledge of obscure rules of the game. It does not tap the full range of facilitative skills of group leaders. And it typically leaves many stakeholders (often something just short of a majority) angry and disappointed, with little or nothing to show for their efforts.

Even with these weaknesses, many social groups and organizations, especially in community settings, adhere to Robert’s Rules (by referencing them in their by-laws or articles of incorporation) because they have no other option. “A Short Guide to Consensus Building” offers an alternative that builds on several decades of experience with effective consensus building techniques and strategies. No longer must groups and organizations settle for Robert’s Rules when they would be better off with an alternative that puts the emphasis on cooperation and consensus.

Definitions

---

To explain what has been learned about consensus building over the past several decades, certain terms are important. Indeed, they are central to the presentation in this “Short Guide.” They are not part of everyday language and, thus, require some explanation. The key terms we will define are interests, consensus building, facilitation, mediation, recording, convening, conflict assessment, single-text procedure, creating and claiming value, and circles of stakeholder involvement. These definitions have been developed over the past two decades. There is still not complete agreement among dispute resolution professionals about how they should be defined; so, where important disagreements remain, we will point them out.

Interests (participants’ underlying values and needs)

Interests are what each participant in a group process seeks to achieve. Interests are not the same as positions or demands. Demands and positions are what people say they must have, but interests are the underlying reasons, needs, or values that explain why they take the positions they do. Interests can change in light of new information or a deeper understanding of a problem. They often reflect deeply held beliefs.

Consensus Building (an agreement-seeking process)

Consensus building is a process of seeking unanimous agreement. It involves a good-faith effort to meet the interests of all stakeholders. Consensus has been reached when everyone agrees they can live with whatever is proposed after every effort has been made to meet the interests of all stakeholding parties. Thus, consensus building requires that someone frame a proposal after listening carefully to everyone’s concerns. Participants in a consensus building process have both the right to expect that no one will ask them to undermine their interests and the responsibility to propose solutions that will meet everyone else’s interests as well as their own.

Most consensus building efforts set out to achieve unanimity. Along the way, however, there are sometimes holdouts: people who believe that their interests are better served by remaining outside the emerging agreement. Should the rest of the group throw in the towel? No, this would invite blackmail (i.e., outrageous demands by the holdouts that have nothing to do with the issues under discussion). Most dispute resolution professionals believe that groups or assemblies should seek unanimity but settle for overwhelming agreement that goes as far as possible toward meeting the interests of all stakeholders. This effort to meet the interests of all stakeholders should be understood to include an affirmative responsibility to ensure that those who are excluded really are holdouts and are rejecting the proposal on reasonable grounds that would seem compelling to anyone who found themselves in the holdouts’ shoes. It is absolutely crucial that the definition of success be clear at the outset of any consensus building process.

Facilitation (a way of helping groups work together in meetings)

Facilitation is a meeting management skill. When people are face-to-face, they need to talk and to listen. When there are several people involved, especially if they don’t know each other or they disagree sharply, getting the talking-listening-deciding sequence right is hard. Often, it is helpful to have someone who has no stake in the outcome assist in managing the conversation. Of course, a skilled group member can, with the concurrence of the participants, play this role, too. As the parties try to collect information, formulate proposals, defend their views, and take account of what others are saying, a facilitator reminds them of the ground rules they have adopted and, much like a referee, intervenes when someone violates the ground rules. The facilitator is supposed to be nonpartisan or neutral.

There is some disagreement in various professional circles about the extent to which an effective facilitator needs to be someone from outside the group. Certainly in a corporate context, work teams have traditionally relied on the person “in charge” to play a facilitative role. The concept of facilitative leadership is growing in popularity. Even work teams in the private sector, however, are turning more and more to skilled outsiders to provide facilitation services. In the final analysis, there is reason to worry that a stakeholder might use facilitative authority to advance his or her own interests at the expense of the others.

Mediation (a way of helping parties deal with strong disagreement)

Mediation is a means of helping parties resolve a dispute. While facilitators do most of their work “at the table” when the parties are face-to-face, mediators are often called on to work with the parties before, during, and after their face-to-face meetings. While most mediators are skilled facilitators, not all facilitators have been trained to mediate. The classic image of the mediator comes from the labor relations field where an outside neutral often shuttles back and forth between representatives of labor and management, each of whom has retreated to a separate room as the strike deadline looms. These days, mediators work in an extraordinarily wide range of conflict situations. Mediation is both a role and a group management skill. A manager or team leader may have mediation skills and may be able to broker agreement by putting those skills to use. But, again, when the search for innovative solutions rests in the hands of one of the stakeholders, it is often hard for the others to believe that the leader/mediator isn’t trying to advance his or her own interests at their expense.

The big debate in professional circles is whether any mediator really can (or should) be neutral. The referee in a sporting match must be nonpartisan; he or she can’t secretly be working for one team. The referee tries to uphold the rules of the game to which everyone has agreed. This is what is commonly meant by neutrality—nonpartisanship and an absence of bias with respect to the parties. However, some people have argued that a mediator should not be indifferent to blatant unfairness. They believe that a mediator should not turn a blind eye to potentially unfair or unimplementable agreements, even if the “rules of the game” have not been violated. Yet if a mediator intervenes on behalf of a party that may be about to “give away the store,” why should the others accept that mediator’s help? The answer probably depends on the level of confidence the parties have in the mediator and the terms of the mediator’s contract with the group.

Before the parties in a consensus building process come together, mediators (or facilitators) can play an important part in helping to identify the right participants, assist them in setting an agenda and clarifying the ground rules by which they will operate, and even in “selling” recalcitrant parties on the value of participating. Once the process has begun, mediators (and facilitators) try to assist the parties in their efforts to generate creative resolution of differences. During these discussions or negotiations, a mediator may accompany a representative back to a meeting with his or her constituents to explain what has been happening. The mediator might serve as a spokesperso...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• PART 1: A SHORT GUIDE TO CONSENSUS BUILDING
• PART 2: HOW TO BUILD CONSENSUS
• PART 3: CASES AND COMMENTARIES
• Selected Bibliography
• Index
• About the Editors
• About the Contributors