Consensus

Consensus conclusiveness- train is a theme decisiveness making move that seeks the consent of solely participants. Consensus whitethorn be defined profession tout ensembley as an acceptable resolution, unity that goat be supported, even if non the favourite of distributively individual. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, world-wide symmetricalness, and second, multitudeing solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin newsworthiness consensus (agreement), which is from consentio meaning liter every last(predicate)y feel together. 1 It is apply to describe both(prenominal) the decision and the member of reaching a decision.Consensus decision-making is thus link uped with the solve of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and the social and political effects of using this crop. Consensus decision making is an resource to commonly practiced adversarial decision making processes. 5 Roberts Rules of Order, for instance, is a proce ss used by m both organizations. The goal of Roberts Rules is to structure the debate and going of proposals that win approval done majority vote. This process does not show the goal of wide-eyed agreement.Critics of Roberts Rules believe that the process can read adversarial debate and the formation of competing factions. These kinetics whitethorn harm throng subdivision relationships and undermine the ability of a classify to cooperatively implement a contentious decision. Consensus decision making is also an alternative to top-down decision making, commonly practiced in hierarchical collections. Top-down decision making occurs when leaders of a group make decisions in a expression that does not include the participation of all interested stakeholders.The leaders may (or may not) gather input, but they do not open the deliberateness process to the whole group. Proposals atomic number 18 not collaboratively developed, and wide agreement is not a primary objective. Crit ics of top-down decision making believe the process fosters incidence of either complacency or rebellion among disempowered group members. Additionally, the resulting decisions may overlook important concerns of those directly affected. Poor group relationship dynamics and decision implementation problems may result. Consensus decision making attempts to apportion the problems of both Roberts Rules of Order and top-down cases.Proponents claim that outcomes of the consensus process include3 * relegate Decisions Through including the input of all stakeholders the resulting proposals may better address all potential concerns. * Better Implementation A process that includes and respects all parties, and generates as much agreement as possible sets the stage for great cooperation in implementing the resulting decisions. Better Group Relationships A cooperative, collaborative group line can foster greaConsensus Process There ar multiple bit-by-bit dumbfounds of how to make decisio ns by consensus.They vary in the amount of detail the stairs describe. They also vary depending on how decisions are finalized. The basic model involves * collaboratively generating a proposal, * identifying unsatisfied concerns, and then * modifying the proposal to generate as much agreement as possible. After a concerted attempt at generating full agreement, the group can then apply its final decision regularisation to chance if the existing level of agreement is sufficient to finalize a decision. edit Specific models edit Consensus decision-making with consensus blockingFlowchart of basic consensus decision-making process. Groups that require unanimity commonly use a core set of procedures depicted in this flow chart. 232425 Once an order of business for handling has been set and, optionally, the ground rules for the confrontation have been agreed upon, each gunpoint of the agenda is addressed in turn. Typically, each decision arising from an agenda item follows through a s imple structure * banter of the item The item is discussed with the goal of identifying opinions and information on the topic at cave in.The popular direction of the group and potential proposals for action are often determine during the discussion. * Formation of a proposal Based on the discussion a formal decision proposal on the issue is presented to the group. * Call for consensus The facilitator of the decision-making personate calls for consensus on the proposal. Each member of the group usually must actively state their agreement with the proposal, often by using a hand gesture or raising a colored card, to avoid the group interpreting silence or inaction as agreement.The number of blocks is counted to determine if this steps consent threshold is satisfied. If it is, dissenters will be asked to collaborate on a minority position or statement so that any eccentric or shared concerns with proceeding with the agreement, or any harms, can be addressed/minimized. This can ha ppen even if the consent threshold is unanimity, peculiarly if many voters stand aside. * Identification and addressing of concerns If consensus is not achieved, each dissenter presents his or her concerns on the proposal, potentially starting anformer(a) round of discussion to address or clarify the concern. Modification of the proposal The proposal is amended, re-phrased or ridered in an attempt to address the concerns of the decision-makers. The process then returns to the call for consensus and the cycle is ingeminate until a satisfactory decision passes the consent threshold for the group. edit Quaker model Quaker-establish consensus26 is effective because it puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards unity. The Quaker model has been employed in a mixing of secular settings.The process allows for individual voices to be heard while providing a mechanism for dealing with disagreements. 2728 The following aspects of the Quaker model can be effecti vely applied in any consensus decision-making process, and is an adaptation prepared by Earlham College * Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear. * Discussion involves active listening and sharing information. * Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to master that each speaker is fully heard. * Ideas and solutions belong to the group no names are recorded. Differences are resolved by discussion. The facilitator ( clerk or convenor in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper. * The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a minute of the decision. * The group as a whole is responsible for the decision and the decision belongs to the group. * The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest. * Dissenters perspectives are embraced. 26K ey components of Quaker-based consensus include a belief in a common humanity and the ability to conciliate together. The goal is unity, not unanimity. Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator is understood as serving the group rather than acting as person-in-charge. 29 In the Quaker model, as with other consensus decision-making processes, by articulating the emerging consensus, members can be clear on the decision, and, as their views have been taken into account, will be likely to support it. 30 edit CODM ModelThe Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making31 model offers a detailed step-wise description of consensus process. It can be used with any type of decision rule. It outlines the process of how proposals can be collaboratively built with full participation of all stakeholders. This model allows groups to be flexible enough to make decisions when they need to, while still following a format that is based on the primary values of consensus decision making. The CODM steps include 1. soma the topic 2. Open Discussion 3. Identifying Underlying Concerns 4. Collaborative Proposal expression . Choosing a Direction 6. Synthesizing a Final Proposal 7. Closure edit Overlaps with thoughtful methods Consensus decision-making models overlap significantly with deliberative methods, which are processes for structuring discussion that may or may not be a lead-in to a decision. edit Roles The consensus decision-making process often has several roles which are designed to make the process predominate more effectively. Although the name and nature of these roles varies from group to group, the most common are the facilitator, a timekeeper, an empath and a secretary or notes taker.Not all decision-making bodies use all of these roles, although the facilitator position is almost always filled, and some groups use supplementary roles, much(prenominal) as a Devils advocate or greeter. Some decision- making bodies opt to turn off these roles through the group members in order to build the experience and skills of the participants, and counteract any perceived concentration of power. 23 The common roles in a consensus meeting are * Facilitator As the name implies, the role of the facilitator is to help make the process of reaching a consensus decision easier.Facilitators accept responsibility for moving through the agenda on time ensuring the group adheres to the mutually agreed-upon mechanics of the consensus process and, if necessary, suggesting alternate or additional discussion or decision-making techniques, much(prenominal) as go-arounds, break-out groups or role-playing. 3233 Some consensus groups use two co-facilitators. Shared facilitation is often adopt to diffuse the perceived power of the facilitator and create a system whereby a co-facilitator can pass off facilitation duties if he or she becomes more in person engaged in a debate. 34 * Timekeeper The purpose of t he timekeeper is to ensure the decision-making system keeps to the schedule set in the agenda. Effective timekeepers use a variety of techniques to ensure the meeting runs on time including giving stag time updates, ample warning of short time, and keeping individual speakers from pickings an excessive amount of time. 23 * Empath or Vibe Watch The empath, or vibe watch as the position is sometimes called, is charged with monitoring the emotional climate of the meeting, taking note of the body language and other non-verbal cues of the participants.Defusing potential emotional conflicts, maintaining a climate bountiful of intimidation and being aware of potentially destructive power dynamics, such as sexism or racism within the decision-making body, are the primary responsibilities of the empath. 32 * commemorate taker The role of the notes taker or secretary is to document the decisions, discussion and action points of the decision-making body. * ter group cohesion and interperso nal connection.