Several times over the past few months, leaders of various organizations have asked me whether Credence has written anything about how to lead collaborative conversations and consensus-based decision-making processes. While Credence covers these themes in our Leading Meetings workshops, I’ve been wanting to write an article about consensus for some time. These recent requests have nudged me to put thoughts to paper.

Many of you will be familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order – a common decision-making process used in Board meetings and other formal settings where clarity and due process are primary. Robert’s Rules of Order involves formal motions on decisions, movers, seconders, and calls for those in favour and those opposed. In the right setting, Robert’s Rule approach works well, but it does not work in every setting. For example, Robert’s Rule approach is ineffective for groups wanting to make decisions by consensus and is too “over-the-top” for the daily decisions made by teams in the workplace.

Unfortunately, many groups simply don’t have a decision-making process. Groups may talk until certain voices have spoken, until people become too weary to lodge further disagreement, or, in the absence of a clear approach to decision-making, some groups simply talk in circles.

Leading discussions where people weigh ideas, discern together, and choose a path forward involves significant leadership skills. Moving collaboratively from introduction to conclusion requires active facilitation to ensure a diversity of voices is heard, management of group dynamics to ensure diverse personalities work together, and active listening to support group members with sensing the emerging direction. If the decision is meant to be consensus-based rather than by voting, the level of leadership skill required is even greater because of the finesse involved in moving an emerging direction to an actionable decision.

Defining Consensus

When entering any type of decision-making process, it is important that group members know in advance how decisions will be made. For example, will decisions be made by voting, consensus, or modified consensus? If one of the latter two, what definition of consensus or modified consensus will the group be using? Consider, for example, two approaches to consensus, as follows:

4- Level Consensus

1. I support the decision, for these reasons…
2. I support the decision, with the following reservations…
3. I do not support the decision, for the following reasons… and will not stand in the way of the decision moving forward.
4. I do not support the decision, for the following reasons… and will stand in the way of the decision-moving forward.

In 4-Level consensus, if all team members declare Levels 1 – 3, the decision passes and consensus has been achieved. If even one member declares Level 4, the decision returns to the table for further consideration before entering a second round of consensus polling.

 

3-Level Modified Consensus

1. I support the decision, for these reasons…
2. I support the decision, with the following reservations…
3. I do not support the decision, for the following reasons…

In 3-Level modified consensus, the decision passes when a designated percentage (e.g., 75%) of participants declare Levels 1 or 2.

The 3-Level approach carries with it the benefit that no single voice can veto a decision that reflects the consensus of the larger group. The 3-Level approach bears the hallmarks of voting, however, which not every group desires.

 

Consensus Processes Step-by-Step

Imagine for a moment that your team is wrestling with an important problem. The group is divided: some feel strongly in favour of one approach for solving the problem; others feel strongly in favour of a different approach for solving the problem. You are leading the conversation. What do you do? Leading a collaborative-consensus conversation from start to finish, involves several key steps.

Step 1

Follow the “three-times” rule. The three-times rule reminds us that groups should visit all hard (non-crisis) decisions at least three times: once to understand the problem; a second time to discuss the problem; and a third time to decide on a direction regarding the problem.

Crisis decisions are exempted from this approach because time is not likely on your side. Assuming time is on your side, visiting a problem three times allows people (a) time to reflect on the problem; (b) time to do necessary research between meetings to ensure the relevant facts are surfaced in the conversation; and (c) free-flowing conversation about the problem without the pressure of making a decision. Following the three-times rule allows people to be readier to step into decision-making at the point of the “third visit.”

During the three meetings the facilitator is engaging in active listening, offering paraphrases, open-ended questions, and summaries to help people hear each other help the group notice the emerging areas of agreement and the remaining areas of disagreement.

Step 2

At the beginning of the third meeting, the facilitator (or a participant) identifies the emerging “sense” of the meeting. This is a way of testing an idea about the emerging direction based on the conversation thus far and an opportunity to listen for the level of affirmation in the group.

Step 3

If the level of affirmation is high at Step 2, and the group has adequately discussed the topic, the facilitator (or a participant) proposes a statement for decision. The facilitator “polls” for consensus. Each member of the group can now declare Level 1 – 4 or Level 1 – 3, depending on the pre-determined definition of consensus. Group members must share their ‘Level’ and briefly give the rationale for their decision. Short rationale statements help participants understand each other better – and, in some cases, may shift the level of consensus at which people place themselves.

Step 4

If all group members declare Levels 1 – 3 (in the 4-Level approach) or 75% declare Levels 1 – 2 (in the 3-Level approach), the decision passes and the group proceeds accordingly. (Even if a decision passes, some groups, upon hearing the perspective of their colleagues agree to revisit the decision because new wisdom has emerged that the group had not fully appreciated before.)

If one or more members declare Level 4 (in the 4-Level approach) or more than 25% declare Level 3 (in the 3-Level approach), the group revisits the conversation about the decision, exploring the proposed direction to seek new insights and fresh clarity regarding how to proceed.

Step 5

Based on the conversation thus far, the facilitator proposes a statement for decision and “polls” for consensus. Each member of the group declares Level 1 – 4 (or Level 1 – 3, depending on the pre-determined definition of consensus).

If all group members declare Levels 1 – 3 (in the 4-Level approach) or 75% declare Levels 1 – 2 (in the 3-Level approach), the decision passes and the group proceeds accordingly. If one or more members declare Level 4 (in the 4-Level approach) or more than 25% declare Level 3 (in the 3-Level approach), the decision fails. (At this point, some groups bump a discussion to a higher level.)

 

Conclusion

Once both leaders and group members become practiced with using the three-times rule and consensus-based decision-making, declaring one’s level of consensus becomes second nature, allowing an ease to emerge with the consensus approach.

When groups follow a clearly defined process, conversations become more efficient and effective; and decision-making processes go from murky to clear, ultimately leading groups to land on better decisions.

.

Do you want your team to make decisions more collaboratively?

Credence is here to support your leaders in building clarity and confidence when leading group discussions and consensus processes. Reach out to Credence to explore how we can help your team move from dialogue to direction.