Consensus applies in defined groups, charged with a decision.
Except when the word is over used, consensus does not have to do with say the popularity of pizza, or tennis shoes for outdoor activities, or general social agreement in a society about ... something. Instead, words like trend, norm, more, custom, etc. are a better fit.
[right here is where you can go off on a tangent arguing about whether or not consensus as you've used it is correct or not]
Consensus is best applied to a group of decision-makers each having a role in the implementation of the decision's outcome. A board for an electrical coop, a corporation, a city government, members of a tenant's union, members of a condominium board, the church christian education committee, etc. The size of the group can be small (city council of elected precinct representatives) or large (the membership of the Industrial Workers of the World) but what is key is that the decision-makers have a role in implementing the results of the decision.
Most consensus-based decision models clearly note that consensus can be, but doesn't have to be, unanimous agreement. It happens from time to time, but it isn't required that everyone agree. Instead, most models incorporate several ways to disagree.... and still support a consensus agreement. At work, and in a number of organizations I've been involved with that rely on consensus we've used a fast and easy tool to keep debate and decision formulation moving. It's called the five finger voting system. 1 and 2 are levels of agreement that mean the participant is on board with the direction things are going. A 3 means more discussion is needed or issues need to be clarified, etc. A 4 means the person is in disagreement but will not disrupt or block the decision, for the good of the group. A 5 is called a block and can only be used if the decision being made is in direct conflict with the purpose of the group. Naturally if you vote a 5 you have a lot of explaining to do. There are variations on this theme but essentially it is a process that keeps debate moving in a results oriented direction. Votes are taken regularly throughout the process ensuring everyone is on the same page. It works wonderfully.
Our cultural tendency toward simple (51%) and super (66-75%) majority is about a dysfunctional a model as you can get. It prescribes that, with every decision, it is acceptable to leave half or a third of the people responsible for implementing a decision out in the cold. It's a process designed to create a bi-polar conflict at every turn, and, one that almost guarantees implementation of a decision will be slow, weak and ineffective. It is almost as if a minority of wealthy gentlemen designed to so as to ensure the whole "democracy" thing didn't get away from them.
Consensus models that incorporate EVERYONE involved in implementing a decision are the most effective. So, If you are trying to solve a food distribution issue, then that means your decision team needs to incorporate everyone from the chief, right down to the guy on the loading dock, and maybe a few of the customers. You cant have say, all the regional managers get together and fix it with a quick vote, majority wins. It doesn't work, and we have miles of history behind us showing that it doesn't.
Consensus-based decisions are the way things are going. Efficient and effective things anyway.
What is important is understanding that this is the way you solve HUGE problems and we are in a world with HUGE PROBLEMS. Majority rule wont do it. Majority rule wins you insurgencies, strikes, and reduced participation in implementation, precisely when you need unity and concerted effort the most.
Consensus based decision making has never been easier than it is today. Our world is incredibly connected and thus the ability to reach consensus made infinitely easier than say, in the early 1930's when Lean Process Improvement took hold in industry, and early labor unions were trying to organize. With the click of a tab I can be in a meeting with everyone in my organization, handle a difficult issue, get a consensus based decision, and develop an implementation plan and get things moving, without even putting on pants.
Our system of government (and industry) seeks to focus on attacking complex, fractious issues with simplistic, often draconian, always partisan, solutions. That. Doesn't. Work. It never has worked. There is no "sweeping solution" or "final decision" that works because eating an elephant is not something you can do in one bite. Besides, our system is designed so that only 51% of the decision makers have to actually want to eat an elephant, with the other 49% left saying "WTF, I didn't sign up to be part of this!"
Instead, consensus based approaches say "pick a problem nearly everyone agrees is a problem, and fix it". Rinse, wash, repeat. It's repetitive, it can be kind of tedious, and it works. It shows clear and convincing results. One booger at a time, you can pick the whole nose.
I go on this diatribe in this forum because consensus based models have been on the rise in industry and government throughout this crisis era. Brought on by the broken nature of our politics (bother government and private sector) those that are charged with "doing" have created work arounds. These work arounds WORK, and work even better in a pandemic environment where people are FORCED to collaborate with people other than their immediate team, or direct supervisor. In the space of 13 years, nearly every aspect of the government agency I work in has gone to consensus based decision making with only the most formal issues taken to a board to be approved by a vote, as prescribed by law. That board, since it knows what's good for it, always asks how the proposal was designed, and how the team was assembled.
As we exit the crisis into the gods know what, we're either going to see low flat hierarchies with consensus based models for decision making become the norm, or we are going to get whiplash going backwards to tall pointy hierarchies, with masses of disaffected people becoming angry, and resistant. If the former happens, we may see a 1T where the bounty of our tech and information revolutions finally meld into the fabric of our living, making for a society that is easier to run, and easier to live in. If the latter happens, well then, welcome to the new Gilded Age.
I've always been accused of being an optimist, but there are worse things. I've also had the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" more times than I could count. These days I remain an optimist, but I frankly have no idea what to expect as we come up on 2024 and beyond. I take heart in the spread of Lean Process Improvement throughout government and industry, and the rapid blooming of cooperatives ranging from internet and utility providers to more traditional coops all my hippy friends remember.
Except when the word is over used, consensus does not have to do with say the popularity of pizza, or tennis shoes for outdoor activities, or general social agreement in a society about ... something. Instead, words like trend, norm, more, custom, etc. are a better fit.
[right here is where you can go off on a tangent arguing about whether or not consensus as you've used it is correct or not]
Consensus is best applied to a group of decision-makers each having a role in the implementation of the decision's outcome. A board for an electrical coop, a corporation, a city government, members of a tenant's union, members of a condominium board, the church christian education committee, etc. The size of the group can be small (city council of elected precinct representatives) or large (the membership of the Industrial Workers of the World) but what is key is that the decision-makers have a role in implementing the results of the decision.
Most consensus-based decision models clearly note that consensus can be, but doesn't have to be, unanimous agreement. It happens from time to time, but it isn't required that everyone agree. Instead, most models incorporate several ways to disagree.... and still support a consensus agreement. At work, and in a number of organizations I've been involved with that rely on consensus we've used a fast and easy tool to keep debate and decision formulation moving. It's called the five finger voting system. 1 and 2 are levels of agreement that mean the participant is on board with the direction things are going. A 3 means more discussion is needed or issues need to be clarified, etc. A 4 means the person is in disagreement but will not disrupt or block the decision, for the good of the group. A 5 is called a block and can only be used if the decision being made is in direct conflict with the purpose of the group. Naturally if you vote a 5 you have a lot of explaining to do. There are variations on this theme but essentially it is a process that keeps debate moving in a results oriented direction. Votes are taken regularly throughout the process ensuring everyone is on the same page. It works wonderfully.
Our cultural tendency toward simple (51%) and super (66-75%) majority is about a dysfunctional a model as you can get. It prescribes that, with every decision, it is acceptable to leave half or a third of the people responsible for implementing a decision out in the cold. It's a process designed to create a bi-polar conflict at every turn, and, one that almost guarantees implementation of a decision will be slow, weak and ineffective. It is almost as if a minority of wealthy gentlemen designed to so as to ensure the whole "democracy" thing didn't get away from them.
Consensus models that incorporate EVERYONE involved in implementing a decision are the most effective. So, If you are trying to solve a food distribution issue, then that means your decision team needs to incorporate everyone from the chief, right down to the guy on the loading dock, and maybe a few of the customers. You cant have say, all the regional managers get together and fix it with a quick vote, majority wins. It doesn't work, and we have miles of history behind us showing that it doesn't.
Consensus-based decisions are the way things are going. Efficient and effective things anyway.
What is important is understanding that this is the way you solve HUGE problems and we are in a world with HUGE PROBLEMS. Majority rule wont do it. Majority rule wins you insurgencies, strikes, and reduced participation in implementation, precisely when you need unity and concerted effort the most.
Consensus based decision making has never been easier than it is today. Our world is incredibly connected and thus the ability to reach consensus made infinitely easier than say, in the early 1930's when Lean Process Improvement took hold in industry, and early labor unions were trying to organize. With the click of a tab I can be in a meeting with everyone in my organization, handle a difficult issue, get a consensus based decision, and develop an implementation plan and get things moving, without even putting on pants.
Our system of government (and industry) seeks to focus on attacking complex, fractious issues with simplistic, often draconian, always partisan, solutions. That. Doesn't. Work. It never has worked. There is no "sweeping solution" or "final decision" that works because eating an elephant is not something you can do in one bite. Besides, our system is designed so that only 51% of the decision makers have to actually want to eat an elephant, with the other 49% left saying "WTF, I didn't sign up to be part of this!"
Instead, consensus based approaches say "pick a problem nearly everyone agrees is a problem, and fix it". Rinse, wash, repeat. It's repetitive, it can be kind of tedious, and it works. It shows clear and convincing results. One booger at a time, you can pick the whole nose.
I go on this diatribe in this forum because consensus based models have been on the rise in industry and government throughout this crisis era. Brought on by the broken nature of our politics (bother government and private sector) those that are charged with "doing" have created work arounds. These work arounds WORK, and work even better in a pandemic environment where people are FORCED to collaborate with people other than their immediate team, or direct supervisor. In the space of 13 years, nearly every aspect of the government agency I work in has gone to consensus based decision making with only the most formal issues taken to a board to be approved by a vote, as prescribed by law. That board, since it knows what's good for it, always asks how the proposal was designed, and how the team was assembled.
As we exit the crisis into the gods know what, we're either going to see low flat hierarchies with consensus based models for decision making become the norm, or we are going to get whiplash going backwards to tall pointy hierarchies, with masses of disaffected people becoming angry, and resistant. If the former happens, we may see a 1T where the bounty of our tech and information revolutions finally meld into the fabric of our living, making for a society that is easier to run, and easier to live in. If the latter happens, well then, welcome to the new Gilded Age.
I've always been accused of being an optimist, but there are worse things. I've also had the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" more times than I could count. These days I remain an optimist, but I frankly have no idea what to expect as we come up on 2024 and beyond. I take heart in the spread of Lean Process Improvement throughout government and industry, and the rapid blooming of cooperatives ranging from internet and utility providers to more traditional coops all my hippy friends remember.
There was never any good old days
They are today, they are tomorrow
It's a stupid thing we say
Cursing tomorrow with sorrow
-- Eugene Hutz
They are today, they are tomorrow
It's a stupid thing we say
Cursing tomorrow with sorrow
-- Eugene Hutz