Category: Consensus

Cricket and Consensus

What on earth does cricket have to do with consensus?!? In many parts of the world they share a common reputation as being minority activities, that are confusing and take way too long to complete. By way of reputation cricket and consensus have a lot in common in the USA, South America, parts of Asia and Europe.

“Popular” sports aren’t popular everywhere

I’m asking all you people from countries that don’t understand cricket to show a little humility here. Cricket is consistently judged as one of the most popular sports in the world (#2 actually) with a fan base of about 2.5 billion. In Australia alone over 1.4 million people play cricket on a regular basis. That’s about 5% of the country’s population! I guess that it is possible that a sport that is strange to some makes perfect sense to others and is something that they value a great deal.

Consensus based decision making is unfamiliar to many people around the world. Sadly, some think that because it isn’t popular in their country that somehow it isn’t popular elsewhere. However that is far from true. Consensus based decision making is incredibly popular in a lot of cultures and groups around the world. I encourage people from societies that are far more combative in their business meetings to take pause and not negatively judge consensus discernment just because it is unfamiliar.

Just because something is strange or unfamiliar to us doesn’t mean that other people find it wierd.

Cricket and consensus are different to their peers

If you are not familiar with cricket then it can certainly take a while to understand the rules. Once you understand the rules, it can take longer to understand the field placings and the strategies of the teams. Certainly there is no other sport that in any way looks like cricket. But that doesn’t make it wrong.

Baseball, a less popular game than cricket, has its rules. It has some similarities with cricket – people on a field, a bat and ball, places to run, etc. Comparing baseball and cricket has been likened to comparing checkers (drafts) to chess. There are some familiar elements in the two games but they are as different as chalk and cheese.

So it is with parliamentary procedures and consensus discernment. They both involve people in a room, talking with each other and trying to come to a decision. But after that they start to lose their similarity! If we are going to make consensus discernment work then we have to accept that it has different rules.

A big mistake that some adopters of consensus make is trying to keep too many of the rules from the old game. Rather, you should learn the new rules of the new game. Yes it can take a bit of time but you just have to do it. Afterall it’s a different game.

Consensus and cricket are complicated

A major objection to introducing consensus discernment is that it is very hard to understand. The argument goes that its rules are complicated and hard to explain. There is another thing that consensus and cricket have in common – bad press about how complicated the rules are. For the record there are 42 laws of cricket. The rules of baseball don’t look any easier to me!

I don’t know how anyone can say that Roberts Rules of Order are easy to follow. In many regional and international meetings there is a “Parliamentarian” appointed to provide guidance on the rules to the Chairperson of the meeting.

If a meeting process is so complicated that you need a specialist to interpret the rules then that is a very complex set of rules. In contrast I have never seen a consensus discernment process that needs an expert to provide rulings for the Chairperson. Sure, when a system is new there may be a mentor to help. However once it becomes familiar there is no need for a consensus process adjudicator on the stage. The reason for this is that the rules are really simple – work together to find a solution!

Conclusion

As the cricket season gets underway in the Southern Hemisphere I am looking forward to a summer of long (five day / 30 hours) and short (3 hour) versions of cricket. Many of you will think it is a novelty, strange and complicated. It isn’t if you come from the sub continent, Australasia, South Africa or England!

Next time you are tempted to consider that consensus discernment is novel, strange or complicated just remember – if you come from another place it may be normal, familiar and simple.

Negotiation & Consensus: Getting to Yes

Common concerns

Negotiation principles are widely applied in many different contexts. What about consensus building appraoches to grooup decision-making? One frequent objection to consensus based decision-making is that it is a new fangled idea that has no track record of success. Some of the ways that this is expressed include:

  • the whole idea is a wishy washy approach that doesn’t work in real life
  • leads to lowest common denominator outcomes
  • it’s all about making a compromise – lose / lose
  • it lacks robust engagement
  • no one uses consensus-building – because it doesn’t work

Negotiation as a conflict resolving tool

For centuries people, businesses and countries have negotiated their way through disagreements. They have used different techniques. Among them have been:

  • threats – if you don’t do what I want then I will make you suffer
  • power – if we don’t agree  then I will use my power to get what I want
  • compromise – each party gives up something to get a bit of what they want
  • interest based negotiation – each seeks to meet the goals of both sides

In the last 50 years or so the the most widely used and effective form of negotiation has been “interest based negotiation”. The classic book on this subject is Getting to Yes: negotiating an agreement without giving in by Roger Fisher and William Ury. It was first published in 1982 and has sold millions of copies through many reprints since then.

Interest based negotiation, sometimes called principled negotiation, is well summarised in the chapter headings of Getting to Yes.

Don’t bargain over positions

When people enter into a dispute they usually start by focusing on what they want out of the situation. That is a position. For example: A couple arguing that only $X is available for a new car. Or “We need to cut the church budget to cope with increasing costs.”

The reason there is a conflict is because the outomes – or positions as they are called – held by the parties are different. Both sides can’t get what they want if they focus on a position.

Instead the focus should be on the things that are most important to the parties – the true goal stripped of the particularity of a position. What is the true interest. For example: “We have only a limited family budget and I don’t want to upset my partner who has other priorities instead of a car.” Or “I’m concerned that the church reserves are going down under my watch as Treasurer.”

These are interests. The deeper need / agenda that is hidden behind the positions of the price to be paid for a car or a focus on budget cuts. By identifying interests and starting the conversation there it is possible to have a very different conversation about options that meet those needs.

Method in interest based negotiations

Separate the people from the problem. Don’t make the dispute personal. See the other party as someone who has legitimate interests and – like you – is trying to have them met. Do not treat them as an enemy. Work with them as a partner in finding a solution that works for both of you.

Foucs on interests not positions. As noted above there is usually more room for conversation around interests than there is about positions. If the argument is about the price of something then there are only so many points to make. However if the discussion also includes ongoing relationships, total family budget, and priorities in the budget then that can be a lot to talk about!

Invent options for mutual gain. The classic “rule” in negotiations is to give something to the other party that is of the highest value to them and the lowest cost to you. As interests are identified and owned it is possible to see what matters most to the parties. By taking a collaborative approach it is possible to create offers that are great gains for the other side but are not a great cost to you. For example: I may be very happy to give up my Friday  pizza and beer night for a year and put that towards the cost of car repayments. After all I was considering going on a diet anyway!

Insist on using objective criteria. Participants in disputes often become very emotive, or base decisions on their understanding of the data. By insisting on “checking the facts” through an objective mechanism some of this emotion can be moderated. When everyone can agree on the data it makes it much easier to find common ground. Negotiations have to be based on reality.

Negotiation and Consensus

If you are familiar with consensus building, as we have presented in our book (The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together) and blog posts, you will immediately see the similarities between negotiation and consensus based discernment. I will not highlight them again here.

The common ground between negotiation and consensus building is huge! In fact consensus building can be considered as interest based negotiation for groups.

If anyone tells you that consensus building discernment is just a fad that has no track record in real life – tell them they are wrong! Interest based negotiation is the standard for international diplomatic and trade negotiations. It is also the same approach that is used in interpersonal mediation. Consensus building discenment draws on the same principles and practices and locates them in the framework of Christian discipleship.

A consensus building approach to discernment is grounded in solid academic research and practical experience. If you want the best chance of creating lasting, owned and implemented decisions then you must use consensus building in your church.

 

 

Guidelines for Getting the Most out of Meetings

Ever had a wasted meeting?

If you are like me, you have participated in many meetings over the course of your lifetime: perhaps at work, school, church, civic groups, etc. In my experience, many of these meetings either contributed to rising conflict in the group, or led to poor decisions being made. Imagine all the time and energy that was invested in these meetings! Is it any wonder that people are actually shying away from joining groups that make decisions? We need a better approach. Thankfully there is one: consensus decision making. We also need guidelines for having successful consensus meetings.

So what is Consensus?

Consensus is simply the practice at arriving at a decision where participants are equally involved in making the decisions. It is a dynamic and creative way of reaching outcomes that work for all members of a group. Rather than having confusing substitutions, complicated voting or calling for the questions to stop discussion (as is the practice with Robert’s Rules of Order), consensus works by improving a proposal so that all can embrace the results. Of course, this means that all opinions, ideas and concerns of participants are taken into account. It is a respectful process where relationships and end results are both valued.

Doesn’t this take more time?

Absolutely not! Once the practice becomes familiar with a group, it actually takes about the same time as a parliamentary procedure or even less. It certainly generates a course of action that has the support it needs to be successful. Furthermore,  decisions are less likely to be revisited or challenged later. (For more information, see previous posts on this site about the process or read our book: “The Church Guide for Making Decisions Together” Abingdon Press, 2017.)

What you can do to help the process

  • Before you do anything else: pray. Ask for guidance in participating well in the meeting.  Pray for the chair of the meeting as well as other participants.  Lift up the hope of a just resolution.
  • Come to the meeting with a collaborative mindset. Read the proposal in advance and make a list of what you can support in it as well as a list of questions you have about the material. Beginning with a proper attitude is essential. Rather than beginning with your objections or arguments, ask yourself: “What is this proposal trying to achieve?” “What can I support?”
  • Be willing to work towards the solution that’s best for the everyone, not just what you desire to happen. This takes a flexible mindset and the ability to compromise in order to reach an agreement. Sometimes a huge roadblock to reaching consensus is one person’s attachment to their own idea. Ask yourself: “Does this new idea work best for the group, even if I didn’t think of it first?”
  • Help to create a respectful and trusting atmosphere. In consensus, it is important that everyone feels that they can express their ideas and opinions.  Its not worth getting upset by differences in approach. Strive to keep an open mind.
  • Listen actively to what other people are saying and what they value. Use good communication strategies like respectful listening. Make every effort to understand someone’s position and their underlying needs, and concerns. If you don’t understand what is beng said- say so. Allow adequate time and space to consider various points of views.
  • When you have the opportunity to express your own position, do so as clearly and concisely as possible. Rather than trying to convince others of the merit of your argument,  be open and honest about the reasons for your viewpoint. Work with others to develop the best way forward.
  • It’s natural for their to be disagreement or conflict over things people value or feel strongly about. Consensus isn’t about everyone thinking the same thing at the same time. Differences of opinion are natural. When disagreements arise, they can actually help form a stronger option that has not been considered before. You need a wide range of information to do this successfully. In fact, if you reach consensus too quickly it may mask that a group fears disagreement or does not have the ability to work through it in healthy ways. It may also mean that people do not feel safe enough in the process to be honest with the group and express a different opinion.
  • Use your cards wisely. Rather than vote, the use of colored response cards are helpful to reaching consensus. Instruct people on how to use the response cards wisely. Blue cards are used after a person speaks to signal to the chair that they are cool to the idea that was shared. It also means that the group is not ready to reach consensus and needs more time. An orange card signals that you are favorable to an idea or that you are ready to reach consensus. Use the cards to signal your response to what is being said.
  • Celebrate your decisions.  Affirm people for the time and energy it takes to make good decisions.  Over time, people will feel comfortable with the process and feel comfotable with it.

By following these simple guidelines, you can have a successful consensus decision-making meeting.

Tips for a Chair of a Consensus Meeting

We’ve discussed the various parts of the consensus decision-making process. Now it’s time to provide tips for the chair of the meeting. Like other business meetings, there is a certain level of skill involved in completing consensus decision-making in your organization. There are specific skills you can learn to make the process go smoothly. The answer to “how” begins with a simple “yes” that you want to do this process well.

Considerations for a Well-Run Meeting

Here is a list of factors that will help you successfully Chair your next meeting using consensus decision-making:

  1.  Prepare: Most meetings get off to a poor start because the participants are confused about the details. Be sure your leaders know the time and place of the meeting. Provide an agenda in advance so people know what to expect. Also, provide a copy of the proposal to each person attending at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. Make sure that the rationale / reasoning/ aim of the proposal/ resolution is provided seperate from the proposal.
  2. Pray: Perhaps this sounds unnecessary to mention, yet it is important.  Pray for your facilitation of the meeting and for the people attending. Ask God’s guidance for the process.
  3. Room Arrangements: How the room is arranged is a key factor to the success of the meeting. The Chair should be seated at a place in the room where they can clearly see all participants.
  4.  Audio Support: People need to hear clearly what is being said in the meeting. If the group is large enough, you may need microphones for the chair and in key locations in the meeting space for participants.
  5. Visuals: In most meetings, it is helpful to have some type of projection of material. This is true of the actual proposal itself with the ability to edit the document in real time during the meeting.
  6. Presentation of the Proposal: As chair, you should help the presenter of the proposal to be prepared to share the background for the proposal as well as the actual wording before the meeting. They should be ready to place the proposal before the group in a succinct manner. You will need to get a second from someone in the group to move the proposal forward. It helps to have these people lined up in advance of the meeting so there are no surprises.
  7. Receiving Questions: Once the proposal is before the group, allow time for questions for clarification. Be alert! Sometimes people will nest a question in a revision. Or they will make a statement or speech with a question mark at the end! This is not the time for debate or to improve the document – it’s space to be sure that you understand the proposal and the impact it may have on your group. If someone raises a revision, call them out of order by gently asking them to bring that suggestion to the group at the appropriate time in the meeting.
  8. Teachable Moments: As chair, it is helpful to acknowledge where you are in the process and guide the group toward full participation. When someone does something not helpful to the process, invite them to wait until the process is open to their input. On those occasions when a participant asks a good question or does something to advance the process, call attention to it so people can gain confidence in how those things support the group.
  9. Deliberation: This is the real meat of the process. As Chair of the meeting, you will need to be on your toes during this section of the meeting. Invite the group to think about what they can support in the proposal or what would help them support the proposal. Sometimes asking people to ‘pair and share’ their responses to these questions with one another. This allows the introverts in the group an opportunity to participate on a deeper level. If you are working with a very large group, you may want to divide the participants into smaller groups to allow this conversation to happen. After you allow time for this interaction, call the group together and ask participants to share their revisions or suggestions to improve the proposal.
  10. Perfecting the Proposal: Once you move into the part of your meeting where people can make suggestions to revise the initial proposal it is important to have a scribe or recorder capture the comments so people can see them in real time. This could be done in Powerpoint, or on a sheet of newsprint. In large groups, have people submit their revision in writing.  Take your time and slow this part of the meeting to the pace that it is easy for people to stay current with the conversation. This prevents duplication of comments or getting stuck.
  11. Gaining Support: As Chair, it is crucial that you are able to guide the group toward full participation so everyone is heard. Sometimes, asking if there is a voice in the room or perspective that you have not heard yet is helpful.  Whenever you ask this question allow time for a response. Another way to read the group is with the use of colored cards. Have blue and orange cards cut to 5X7 (A5 or even larger) for each participant. Explain that blue means that you are cool to an idea or not ready to support the proposal. Orange denotes that you are warm to an idea expressed or ready to make a decision. Invite the group to use their cards whenever a person speaks in the deliberation phase. This provides you with a good idea of whether the group is working well with the material before them or even ready to make a decision.
  12. Ready for a Decision: At this point in the meeting, the proposal has been shaped by the wisdom in the group. It’s time to make a decision and there are many ways to do this. The easiest is to simply ask for a show of cards if all are orange – you have consensus! But if you are building consensus before a vote, then a show of hands in support of the proposal as well as a show of hands not supporting the proposl will work. Some groups will ask if anyone is standing outside of consensus on the matter to hear why they feel as they do. This provides one more chance to perfect the proposal.
  13. Acknowledging the Work: once the process has run its course and a decision has been made thank the presenter of the proposal as well as the participants for their dedication on completing the decision.

Conclusion

You will find over time that the consensus decision-making process gets shorter and easier for participants. Also, the results get more creative and easier to implement. Your role as the Chair of the meeting, makes this possible. Do everything in your power to run the meeting well and empower the group to make good decisions.

WMC Leaders Discuss Consensus

WMC leaders have been learning about consensus. What does consensus mean to cross-cultural leaders?  Terence Corkin and I offered a training session and experience of consensus decision-making at the recent World Methodist Council (WMC) in Seoul, South Korea.

This organization brings together church leaders from around the world that share a Methodist heritage.  Its Executive team (the Steering Committee) wanted to explore a more respectful method of making decisions than Robert’s Rules of Order because. The last Council meeting in Houston showed that there was room for improvement. Like most organizations considering the shift to consensus, they decided to introduce the process to members of the Council at their meeting to get their support.

I interviewed 2 delegates to get their perspective on the process.  Here are their observations on consensus:

Edgar De Jesus, USA

Edgar is from the Philipines and is currently the Pastor of Davis Street United Methodist Church in Burlington, North Carolina.  This congregation is becoming a cross-cultural fellowship. They host a successful feeding ministry every Sunday morning for the poor and marginalized.

On Using Consensus

“Consensus is a timely, respectful process of making decisions that is truly needed in today’s world.”

“It’s not a methodology – it is an invitation to join with God’s Spirit at work in the world.  It is a way of seeing things from a Kingdom perspective or what matters to God. Further, it goes back to our understanding of who we are as a church. Jesus modeled consensus (it’s part of our Christology). He engaged people through conversation around the issues they cared about with mutuality and respect.”

Today, the church continues to be a gathered community that seeks to deliberate and resolve issues in a respectful, creative manner. “Consensus attacks implicit bias, domination and manipulation of people. Our decision-making process should be counter-cultural and model a Christ-like way of working together. You can debate elsewhere – the church must discern the will of God and call upon the Christian community gathered to model a better way.”

Rev De Jesus continues, “consensus is not an end in itself – it’ a beginning.  We acknowledge that we can see Jesus in one another as we talk about the issues we care deeply about discussing. We believe that we are in this together so it helps me have a different take than ‘Robert’s Rules’ to make decisions with each other.”

Edgar believes that the best decisions are made in community after respectful listening and deliberation. “Using a consensus process to discern God’s will disrupts the status quo” he explains. “It turns things upside down so assumptions are brought into the light for examination.” Further, it levels the playing field to allow full participation of everyone – not just the powerful majority. “When this occurs, we make good decisions.”

On Organizations Making the Shift to Use Consensus

Rev. De Jesus believes that “receiving training and experiencing the process is very helpful. For the WMC, it’s a great start, but just as important is using the model in the future.  My hope is that it does not just stay at the top level of the organization but filters through other committees and plenary sessions to engage all of us as we minister in the world. Birthing this process at the WMC is an important step for this organization.”

Edgar believes that it is also vital to bring a consensus discernment process back to our local contexts and communities as an alternative model.

Amelia Meli Koh-Butler

Amelia is a minister in the Uniting Church in Australia. She is an expert in cross-cultural ministry who has held positions in the Synod of South Australia and the National Assembly.  Currently, Amelia is a University Chaplain.

On Why Consensus Matters

“My generation would rather leave an organization or not participate in Robert’s Rules of Order.  It breaks Christian community.”

Cross-Cultural People and Consensus

She shared the connection between consensus and the use of the Samoan Fine Mat. In this practice, “if you have offended someone, you go their house and sit outside under a grass mat spending time reflecting on what you have done to the other that has upset them and how you can restore the relationship.”

Being under the mat opens you to the Spirit. Under the mat, there is a sense of brokeness. We sit; we wait. This time continues until the other person or family comes out and lifts the mat off of you to restore your relationship once again. The truth is: we all long for restoration –  it is by mercy and grace that we are restored. “The grass mat is also a symbolic place where we sit around together to make conversation and connections that reach consensus. It is a practice of waiting on the wisdom of others to reach a good decision. “You must give up your individualism, says Amelia, for the sake of community.”

“In some parts of the world, we hear the words: “I want or I need…”  In Australia, we use the words:  “We hope… or we yearn…” Consensus places the value on what is best for everyone and is entered into with prayerful humility and patience. “It is more vested in the future than in the past.”

Amelia recognizes the many individuals who have held a safe space for her to be part of the Christian community and invite her to use her gifts and talents. She affirms the decision of the WMC Steering Committee to try a consensus model in its business deliberations. “It is a wonderful way to provide a respectful space for all people to participate and reach a decision.”  She observed that women and minorities tend to participate more in groups that use consensus to reach decisions rather than in those that use parliamentary procedures.

Lessons Learned by the WMC

People of various cultural backgrounds appreciate using consensus in groups. In fact, they prefer it as a method to make decisions in faith communities. They find it practical, respectful, and theologically relevant as a way to determine God’s will.

Read here what five other members of the WMC thought about  the consensus process training in Seoul.