This article is the first installment of two articles on consensus.  In the first article we'll distinguish between a 'consensus building process' and 'achieving a consensus.'  The second article will focus specifically on how to proactively deal with potential conflict during a consensus building discussion.

Differential Consensus and Consensus Building 

I've often had clients come to me for advice when their group can't seem to make timely decisions and stick to them.  When people are first introduced to participatory forms of leadership and decision-making, they often assume that most decisions should be made through the almighty 'consensus.'  Not only is this impractical, it's also not true.  I often start by letting new facilitators know there are a variety of methods for making decisions, and that no single method is "right" all the time - it's dependent on the particular situation.  Many types of decisions are better made by a subgroup, majority voting, or compromise depending on the number of people affected, time sensitivity, and level of commitment required.  Nevertheless, out of all the decision-making options, consensus building typically results in better buy-in and, ultimately, follow-through.  Yet what do we mean by a consensus?  Is it a process or a type of agreement?  It's for this reason we need to get a better handle on what consensus and  consensus building are and when to use either.

What Does Consensus Building Look Like? 

Consensus building is a decision-making process.  It typically involves several stages that enable a group to 'diverge' in thinking and then 'converge' collectively to create a decision/solution that everyone agrees to commit to. The challenge with consensus building is that it takes - you guessed it - a looong time!  Why? Well, when we look at a typical consensus building process (i.e. visioning or objective setting) we're clear that there will be several steps that the 'whole' group will have to collaboratively work through at least one diverging-converging process.  When diverging as a group, activities could include:

• sharing ideas
• hearing out and paraphrasing back what each other states
• asking questions for clarification
• brainstorming, etc.

Once all the ideas are on the table, the converging of ideas could include:

• merging similar ideas together
• sorting or ranking ideas according to degree of importance
• testing for agreement and dealing with disagreement
• ensuring everyone shares a mutual understanding
• challenging assumptions to create innovative solutions, etc.

Consensus building therefore speaks to a process of 'collaboration' and may be defined as "a multi-step process whereby all participants are engaged, and collaborating together to achieve a mutually agreed to outcome."

Differentiating Consensus Building from Achieving a Consensus 

Consensus building as a process is very different from what people refer to as 'achieving a consensus.'  Achieving consensus is referring to the quality of a decision or the 'degree of achievement.'  If, upon making a decision, the group states we have a consensus it should mean 'I not only can live with the idea, but I'm willing to support it in action.'  Anything less than this really means we haven't come to a consensus yet.  So how do you know when you've achieved a consensus or some other degree of agreement?

Testing for Agreement 

The important question that groups need to ask before entering into any kind of decision-making is 'how do we determine what constitutes agreement?' since defining agreement results in many different shades of meaning.  For example, though people may nod their heads up and down when the facilitator/chairperson turns to the group and asks 'do we have an agreement?' what really underlies the nodding can be difficult to decipher.  Upon closer examination, what the nod really may mean is 'I can live with it, if many changes occur' (compromise), or 'I'm nodding because I want to get the hell out of here!' (non-agreement).

Rather than assuming what 'acceptable' agreement means, it's better to have the group define this upfront before getting into a decision-making discussion.  As a group you'll need to collectively agree on how wide a range on the continuum 'acceptable agreement' will fall.  As well, your group will need to define what it will do if agreement falls outside that range.  You can do this by creating a 'continuum of agreement' ranging from "I don't buy it" on the right side to "I absolutely love it!" on the left side.  Then have each participant place an X on the scale to identify where they fall in agreement.  The scale may therefore look like this:

If the majority of responses, when testing for agreement, fall in what your group defines as the 'acceptable range of agreement' then closure is imminent.  If, however, the range of agreement is unacceptable, it will mean further discussion and, therefore, the facilitator challenging the group to come up with new ideas.  An additional alternative, given time constraints and lack of necessary expertise, could include falling back on an alternative decision-making strategy like delegating the decision to a subgroup that has the most expertise or accountability or taking a vote.

Read Part 2 here: Available for all members from June 12-18, 2006.