This article is the second installment of two articles on consensus. In the first article we distinguished between a 'consensus building process´ and 'achieving a consensus.' This article will focus specifically on how to proactively deal with potential conflict during a consensus building discussion.
Most of us would rather avoid dealing with conflict head on. While this is understandable, it can have negative effects on the consensus building process. Often - especially when fatigue sets in - groups will simply ´fold´ rather than forge through contentious debate. This has positive and negative implications for decision-making. In positive circumstances, folding is justified when a group member or members have a lesser stake in, or accountability for, the outcome compared to other members. It may also be justified when the risks or consequences of the decision aren´t severe and it´s important to give someone acknowledgement.
In negative circumstances, however, folding is a sign of passive resistance to what Sam Kaner refers to as the ´Groan Zone´ of decision-making.(1) This zone or developmental stage of group process (like ´storming´ in team development) is critical for groups to persevere through in order to achieve mutual understanding and, ultimately, innovative thinking.
Avoiding the ´groan zone´ by allowing group members to fold suggests that your group is giving up the possibility of innovative thinking and acceptance of status quo. Predictably, other ideas will be avoided - especially under the added pressure of time constraints. So how do groups avoid folding under pressure? Understanding and discussing decision parameters up front can help groups avoid this pitfall. Questions to ask prior to getting into content include:
- How will we determine what ´acceptable agreement´ means to us? Give examples of different agreement statements like ´can live with it´ vs. ´can live with it, but ...´
- What do we do if we can´t get a consensual decision by the end of the meeting? What other tactics will we fall back on in order to avoid ´folding´ into an arbitrary decision (i.e. ask for more time, delegate the decision, etc.)?
The results of these questions will lead to some ´targeted norms´ or ´rules of engagement.´ Remember to ensure that with consensus building you leave lots of time for ´slippage´ due to the goal of creating mutual understanding. If the group cannot attain agreement within the decided range of possibilities, then you may have to, up front, seek an extended amount of time to reach agreement or delegate the decision to a subgroup that clearly has the greatest expertise and/or accountability.
Creating and sustaining a vibrant team that builds and encourages innovative thinking is no easy task. Certainly we have little control over organizational mandates and external pressures, but we do have some control over how we engage in decision-making. By preparing the team for potential upcoming ´storm´ will not only alleviate some of the probable pitfalls, but also provide members with better objectivity!
1. Sam Kaner, Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island BC: 1996.
