Group Decision-Making
This section will help you distinguish between decision-making and problem-solving. The author describes five methods for group decision-making and defines autocratic, democratic, and participative decision-making styles.
Guidelines for Seeking Consensus
How can a group actually go about working toward consensus? Here are some guidelines for the process:
First,
be sure everyone knows the definition of consensus and is comfortable
with observing them. For many group members, this may mean suspending
judgment and trying something they've never done before. Remind people
that consensus requires a joint dedication to moving forward toward
improvement in and by the group.
Second,
endeavor to solicit participation by every member of the group. Even
the naturally quietest person should be actively "polled" from time to
time for his or her perspectives. In fact, it's a good idea to take
special pains to ask for varied viewpoints when discussion seems to be
stalled or contentious.
Third,
listen honestly and openly to each group member's viewpoints. Attempt
to seek and gather information from others. Do your best to subdue your
emotions and your tendency to judge and evaluate.
Fourth,
be patient. To reach consensus often takes much more time than voting
would. A premature "agreement" reached because people give in to speed
things up or avoid conflict is likely later to weaken or fall apart.
Fifth,
always look for mutually acceptable ways to make it through challenging
circumstances. Don't resort to chance mechanisms like flipping a coin,
and don't trade decisions arbitrarily just so that things come out
equally for people who remain committed to opposing views.
Sixth,
resolve gridlock earnestly. Stop and ask, "Have we really identified
every possible feasible way that our group might act?" If members of a
group simply can't agree on one alternative, see if they can all find
and accept a next-best option. Then be sure to request an explicit
statement from them that they are prepared to genuinely commit
themselves to that option.
One
variation on consensus decision-making calls upon a group's leader to
ask its members, before initiating a discussion, to agree to a deadline
and a "safety valve". The deadline would be a time by which everyone in
the group feels they need to have reached a decision. The "safety valve"
would be a statement that any member can veto the will of the rest of
the group to act in a certain way, but only if he or she takes
responsibility for moving the group forward in some other positive
direction.
Although
consensus entails full participation and assent within a group, it
usually can't be reached without guidance from a leader. One college
president we knew was a master at escorting his executive team to
consensus. Without coercing or rushing them, he would regularly involve
them all in discussions and lead their conversations to a point at which
everyone was nodding in agreement, or at least conveying acceptance of a
decision. Rather than leaving things at that point, however, the
president would generally say, "We seem to have reached a decision to do
XYZ. Is there anyone who objects?" Once people had this last
opportunity to add further comments of their own, the group could move
forward with a sense that it had a common vision in mind.
Consensus
decision-making is easiest within groups whose members know and respect
each other, whose authority is more or less evenly distributed, and
whose basic values are shared. Some charitable and religious groups meet
these conditions and have long been able to use consensus
decision-making as a matter of principle. The Religious Society of
Friends, or Quakers, began using consensus as early as the 17th century.
Its affiliated international service agency, the American Friends
Service Committee, employs the same approach. The Mennonite Church has
also long made use of consensus decision-making.