Practical, respectful and efficient approaches to community vote-based decision-making?
July 21, 2011 2:35 PM Subscribe
Looking for an efficient, respectful and fair process for a group of 10-15 people to reach a consesus.
Some of the desired results: everyone would be heard respectfully (talking stick?) and cast a vote, a maximum amount of people would end up aligned with the choice, minimized influence of power games and hidden agendas, speedy (1-2 minutes per participant, including voting, so w/ 10 participants, a solid decision could be made in 10-15, max 20 minutes)
Have you experienced an effective process supporting the above? What does it look like, step by step?
Is there a resource where I can look up practical approaches to community-based choice-making?
Step one, determine what you mean by "consensus". I have some experience with consensus in a non-profit in which the term was defined to mean "everyone either agrees with the outcome, or is able to live with it". In that context, I will share the following:
- People talk a lot; it will be very hard to limit their time. Some people will talk a lot more than others. And since every person has a stake in the outcome, a lot of people will want to speak.
- One person talking will often spur five other people who feel the need to respond or rebut, which spurs another five people, and an hour will disappear really fast without any real progress
- Fifteen minutes for a decision with fifteen participants is not at all realistic unless the issue is trivial, or only two or three of the people hold all of the real decision-making power.
The process is fairly simple and relies on a facilitator who will control the order of speakers, rein in unproductive or off-topic discussion, and when consensus appears to be near, summarize the group's position and call the question. Critically this person is not the "chair"; it works best if they are not even part of the group, so they have no stake in the outcome. But decisions take a long time; issues will be raised that have to be hashed out; sometimes you can go in circles, and sometimes you will discover that the issues you are working on are symptoms of deeper problems.
To make quick decisions you will need to step back from full "consensus" into some kind of vote-based system. Be cautious how you use the term because in the latter scheme you may still have minorities who disagree with the chosen outcome and may object to having it called a "consensus".
posted by PercussivePaul at 3:01 PM on July 21, 2011
- People talk a lot; it will be very hard to limit their time. Some people will talk a lot more than others. And since every person has a stake in the outcome, a lot of people will want to speak.
- One person talking will often spur five other people who feel the need to respond or rebut, which spurs another five people, and an hour will disappear really fast without any real progress
- Fifteen minutes for a decision with fifteen participants is not at all realistic unless the issue is trivial, or only two or three of the people hold all of the real decision-making power.
The process is fairly simple and relies on a facilitator who will control the order of speakers, rein in unproductive or off-topic discussion, and when consensus appears to be near, summarize the group's position and call the question. Critically this person is not the "chair"; it works best if they are not even part of the group, so they have no stake in the outcome. But decisions take a long time; issues will be raised that have to be hashed out; sometimes you can go in circles, and sometimes you will discover that the issues you are working on are symptoms of deeper problems.
To make quick decisions you will need to step back from full "consensus" into some kind of vote-based system. Be cautious how you use the term because in the latter scheme you may still have minorities who disagree with the chosen outcome and may object to having it called a "consensus".
posted by PercussivePaul at 3:01 PM on July 21, 2011
I think that to some extent, 'efficient' and 'respectful/fair' are at odds with each other; that is, the most fair ways of reaching consensus, with the highest levels of buying-into the decision by the group, often require allotting a significant amount of time for freewheeling debate and discussion.
Depending on the nature and goals of the group and the contentiousness of the issue at hand, 20 minutes may or may not be enough time to reach a solid consensus.
That being said, when my (small) parish needs to take a congregational decision over some significant issue, we use an 'invitation' model wherein the issue is presented and each person is invited to speak by the preceding speaker until everyone has had the opportunity to have their say. (People are free to decline the invitation to speak and to pass the invitation on to someone else if they haven't anything to say.) That limits the amount of back-and-forth between a few outspoken people who might otherwise dominate the discussion, conflate it with a tangential or irrelevant issue between a few members of the group or narrow the field of possible creative solutions into one or two options (i.e., black & white thinking).
Based on two minutes' skimming, the wikipedia article on Consensus decision making appears to be a great launching-pad for exploration of these issues.
One thing that's important to decide is what the thresholds should be for various issues. Mundane or unimportant issues could maybe be decided by an individual member or an executive group without needing to consult the whole group; more important issues might need to be brought to a majority vote of the whole group; and 'constitutional' issues (major proposed changes to group identity, vision, values or decision-making methods) might need to be decided by consensus, or consensus minus one. (Consensus -1 refers to an agreement that even if one person is a holdout, they will agree to buy-into the decision the whole group has made; the idea is that if I am the only one in the whole group who feels a certain way, and I haven't been able to convince even one person to agree with me, there's a good chance that the rest of the group's position should stand.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:18 PM on July 21, 2011
Depending on the nature and goals of the group and the contentiousness of the issue at hand, 20 minutes may or may not be enough time to reach a solid consensus.
That being said, when my (small) parish needs to take a congregational decision over some significant issue, we use an 'invitation' model wherein the issue is presented and each person is invited to speak by the preceding speaker until everyone has had the opportunity to have their say. (People are free to decline the invitation to speak and to pass the invitation on to someone else if they haven't anything to say.) That limits the amount of back-and-forth between a few outspoken people who might otherwise dominate the discussion, conflate it with a tangential or irrelevant issue between a few members of the group or narrow the field of possible creative solutions into one or two options (i.e., black & white thinking).
Based on two minutes' skimming, the wikipedia article on Consensus decision making appears to be a great launching-pad for exploration of these issues.
One thing that's important to decide is what the thresholds should be for various issues. Mundane or unimportant issues could maybe be decided by an individual member or an executive group without needing to consult the whole group; more important issues might need to be brought to a majority vote of the whole group; and 'constitutional' issues (major proposed changes to group identity, vision, values or decision-making methods) might need to be decided by consensus, or consensus minus one. (Consensus -1 refers to an agreement that even if one person is a holdout, they will agree to buy-into the decision the whole group has made; the idea is that if I am the only one in the whole group who feels a certain way, and I haven't been able to convince even one person to agree with me, there's a good chance that the rest of the group's position should stand.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:18 PM on July 21, 2011
You mention voting twice, but that doesn't comport well with your stated goal of reaching a consensus, let alone developing a new solution together as in NGT: it's just one tool for getting to a decision. There's no way that 15 minutes is nearly enough time; your process will seem like a fig leaf if it's rushed.
You need a neutral facilitator to maintain order. If that's you, then first start by setting ground rules, e.g., one person talks at a time, no side conversations, stay positive, etc. Instead of a talking stick, try passing around an egg timer so people can see the time remaining/spent as they talk. Appoint someone to write down people's points on newsprint/white board and confirm that they were captured correctly. This helps avoid repetition and reduces the advantage of going first or last.
If the choices are few, clear and immovable, then voting will work but even then you might want to provide people with a way to show degrees of preference, e.g., give them multiple votes (as in a dot exercise) or different colors to show their first/second/third choice. For the discussion, if it's a binary choice it can be illuminating to have people advocate for/against both options' or, at least, require them to point out a strength of each and a weakness of each. It helps people appreciate the other side's POV and makes losing more tolerable.
If the choices are many, then you should be shooting for a jointly developed solution. One way to do this quickly by a) frame the problem as a "How to" statement, e.g., "How to accomplish x." Ask the group to generate ideas starting with "What if," e.g., What if we did y. This keeps people positive and naysayers can then add a solution like "What if we did opposite of y." Everything should be written down on newsprint and confirmed. Give people a number of dots and ask them to distribute them across, say, the three suggestions that "hold the most promise." Then take these three one at a time and let people express concerns, framed as "how to" questions, e.g., "How to overcome z anticipated difficulty." More dots to identify the most serious concerns... then solutions framed as "we could" statements. This may lead to brainstorming more problems; really the number of rounds is potentially endless, but it will get you to a plan. At the end of it all, usually a comprise idea will emerge and, if not, resort to dots to make the choice. Then it's time to frame up some actions responding to the identified problems and unknown, e.g., Joe to research Topic by Date.
Note: the approach above will work with defined/directed answers-- they represent the first round of "what if."
posted by carmicha at 3:20 PM on July 21, 2011
You need a neutral facilitator to maintain order. If that's you, then first start by setting ground rules, e.g., one person talks at a time, no side conversations, stay positive, etc. Instead of a talking stick, try passing around an egg timer so people can see the time remaining/spent as they talk. Appoint someone to write down people's points on newsprint/white board and confirm that they were captured correctly. This helps avoid repetition and reduces the advantage of going first or last.
If the choices are few, clear and immovable, then voting will work but even then you might want to provide people with a way to show degrees of preference, e.g., give them multiple votes (as in a dot exercise) or different colors to show their first/second/third choice. For the discussion, if it's a binary choice it can be illuminating to have people advocate for/against both options' or, at least, require them to point out a strength of each and a weakness of each. It helps people appreciate the other side's POV and makes losing more tolerable.
If the choices are many, then you should be shooting for a jointly developed solution. One way to do this quickly by a) frame the problem as a "How to" statement, e.g., "How to accomplish x." Ask the group to generate ideas starting with "What if," e.g., What if we did y. This keeps people positive and naysayers can then add a solution like "What if we did opposite of y." Everything should be written down on newsprint and confirmed. Give people a number of dots and ask them to distribute them across, say, the three suggestions that "hold the most promise." Then take these three one at a time and let people express concerns, framed as "how to" questions, e.g., "How to overcome z anticipated difficulty." More dots to identify the most serious concerns... then solutions framed as "we could" statements. This may lead to brainstorming more problems; really the number of rounds is potentially endless, but it will get you to a plan. At the end of it all, usually a comprise idea will emerge and, if not, resort to dots to make the choice. Then it's time to frame up some actions responding to the identified problems and unknown, e.g., Joe to research Topic by Date.
Note: the approach above will work with defined/directed answers-- they represent the first round of "what if."
posted by carmicha at 3:20 PM on July 21, 2011
By the way, promising a consensus solution is usually a trap for the facilitator. Some people will never agree and some problems don't lend themselves to consensus approaches, especially if that means a watered down toothless middle-of-the-road "solution." You can only promise a valid process where everyone is heard respectfully and fairly and understands how the decision was reached. You need people to report to outside stakeholders that the process was fair, even if they lose.
posted by carmicha at 3:25 PM on July 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by carmicha at 3:25 PM on July 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Oh, also, depending on the nature and makeup of the group, it might also be very important to have a conversation at the outset of the meta-decision-making process about the ways that race, gender, language, age, class and culture could affect the decision-making process.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:29 PM on July 21, 2011
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:29 PM on July 21, 2011
Response by poster: To clarify, what I meant by "consensus" was "everyone either agrees with the outcome, or is able to live with it" and by "respectful" - "everyone feels heard and understood."
posted by andreinla at 3:38 PM on July 21, 2011
posted by andreinla at 3:38 PM on July 21, 2011
Response by poster: @carmicha, dividing the choices into "vote-only" and "joinly-developed" is a very useful step, thank you.
posted by andreinla at 3:52 PM on July 21, 2011
posted by andreinla at 3:52 PM on July 21, 2011
What you demonize as "minimized influence of power games and hidden agendas" are, by other names, consensus building and interest alignment, and are the stock tools in trade of natural leaders and politicians. I know of no process that can prevent a natural leader from leading, or emerging as a potential leader in a small group. Good leaders are respectful of the needs and desires of those they lead, because they can't stay in leadership long if they aren't. And if your group includes people of widely different backgrounds, education, intelligence or motivation, allowing people with talent and capability to lead naturally is often far more productive than trying to force all-participant consensus for every decision the group makes.
Delegation of responsibility for outcomes to leaders is one of the perquisites of being a good follower.
posted by paulsc at 5:13 PM on July 21, 2011
Delegation of responsibility for outcomes to leaders is one of the perquisites of being a good follower.
posted by paulsc at 5:13 PM on July 21, 2011
Best answer: Step one is to get group consensus on the *idea* that the group will reach a consensus. "Does everyone agree that we will walk out of here with a consensus?" If you don't get that, work until you can hammer out a consensus at least on how the actual decision will be made. Some groups would have some members who actually prefer a majority rules scenario. Even if the result is ultimately unanimous.
One way that seemed fun, effective and fair was a type of voting. Participants write their "votes" onto sticky notes, and then the sticky notes are stuck up onto the board in groups of similar ideas. This initial run is purely brainstorming; the idea is to literally throw all the shit onto the wall and see what sticks. Then there were a couple of rounds of campaigning, some respectful shooting holes into any ideas that are unworkable. (I forget the actual process, sadly. But the idea was to give everyone a couple of chances to be heard.) The result was that one idea generally bubbled to the top as a clear winner, and then the rest of the meeting was about details. If two ideas were generally equally workable and liked, there would be some kind of other metric with which to choose one to try first.
IE, "we have 5 votes for a choice that will cost $1000, and 6 votes for a choice that will cost $5000. What say we give the cheap one a trial run and see if it works. If it doesn't, we'll try the expensive one."
posted by gjc at 5:21 PM on July 21, 2011
One way that seemed fun, effective and fair was a type of voting. Participants write their "votes" onto sticky notes, and then the sticky notes are stuck up onto the board in groups of similar ideas. This initial run is purely brainstorming; the idea is to literally throw all the shit onto the wall and see what sticks. Then there were a couple of rounds of campaigning, some respectful shooting holes into any ideas that are unworkable. (I forget the actual process, sadly. But the idea was to give everyone a couple of chances to be heard.) The result was that one idea generally bubbled to the top as a clear winner, and then the rest of the meeting was about details. If two ideas were generally equally workable and liked, there would be some kind of other metric with which to choose one to try first.
IE, "we have 5 votes for a choice that will cost $1000, and 6 votes for a choice that will cost $5000. What say we give the cheap one a trial run and see if it works. If it doesn't, we'll try the expensive one."
posted by gjc at 5:21 PM on July 21, 2011
This sounds a lot like how Meeting For Business goes in my local Quaker Meeting. Obviously you won't want the religious element but you might find researching it enlightening for your purpose.
Quaker Business Basics
General Procedure in Meetings for Business Reaching Decisions
posted by flex at 5:24 PM on July 21, 2011
Quaker Business Basics
General Procedure in Meetings for Business Reaching Decisions
posted by flex at 5:24 PM on July 21, 2011
Very often, just having some structure to the discussion makes all the difference. Whoever the facilitator is, make sure they quash the interrupters and cut off the fillibusterers. The interrupters can write their concerns down onto a piece of paper and put it into the middle of the table, and you can get back to it at the end. Problem solved: the interrupters can feel heard, and those who would be interrupted don't get mired in interruptions.
posted by gjc at 5:26 PM on July 21, 2011
posted by gjc at 5:26 PM on July 21, 2011
I hope you're aware that a perfect solution to this problem is impossible.
Arrow's impossibility theorem
Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:00 PM on July 21, 2011
Arrow's impossibility theorem
Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:00 PM on July 21, 2011
I've seen consensus based decision making work really well, and also not very well at all.
Something that works well is hand signals- but only if everyone knows what they are. We had finger snaps for "I agree" which allows people to agree without hopping on the speaking list. Consensus was indicated with "twinkling fingers". Speaking was handled by a facilitator with a speaking list and an agenda. Someone else took minutes, and there was supposed to be a time keeper, but it didn't really appeal to many people to keep time.
Also, with 15 people the meeting will take a longer time. Totally great to have that many people involved with the process though.
posted by titanium_geek at 11:52 PM on July 22, 2011
Something that works well is hand signals- but only if everyone knows what they are. We had finger snaps for "I agree" which allows people to agree without hopping on the speaking list. Consensus was indicated with "twinkling fingers". Speaking was handled by a facilitator with a speaking list and an agenda. Someone else took minutes, and there was supposed to be a time keeper, but it didn't really appeal to many people to keep time.
Also, with 15 people the meeting will take a longer time. Totally great to have that many people involved with the process though.
posted by titanium_geek at 11:52 PM on July 22, 2011
Response by poster: So many great answers, thank you! It is hard to choose one as the best one as so many address the question in a useful way.
posted by andreinla at 12:14 PM on January 30, 2012
posted by andreinla at 12:14 PM on January 30, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
It is fair and pretty quick. I learned about it in one of my public relations classes, we did demonstration rounds of it, and it worked extremely well. The wikipedia entry should explain it well, but I'm sure that googling for it would provide more resources.
posted by aaanastasia at 2:51 PM on July 21, 2011 [1 favorite]