Tag: consensus

Tips for Participants in a Consensus Decision-Making Meeting

Calling Participants in Consensus

Not many people have had a lot of experience as participants in a consensus decision-making meeting. No worries. It can be learned and become familiar to you by looking over the following tips.

Considerations for Participants

Look over this list to learn more about successfully participating in your next business meeting.

  1.  Prepare: Be sure to receive and read the Agenda of the meeting in advance. This is also true of any supporting document like proposals. Do not come to the meeting without adequately preparing for the session. Make a list of questions that you have about the material. What words do I not understand? Do I really understand what will happen if I support this proposal?
  2. Pray: Part of getting ready for the meeting is to pray for the Chair of the meeting as well s the other participants. Ask God’s guidance as you consider the proposal. Be open to the Spirit’s counsel.
  3. Be on Time: Arrive at the meeting 15 minutes in advance, get yourself settled and make positive caring connections with the other members. Play your part in building the community!
  4. Ask Good Questions. Make a list of respectful questions about the matter before the group. These questions should focus on the meaning of the words as well as who is impacted by the decision. Questions are not a chance to make a speech but a way to be faithful and open.
  5. Be a Team Player. Making good decisions is not a solo occupation – it is the work of the community gathered for that purpose. One way to be a good team player is to adjust your attitude. You’re all on the same side. Rather than lobbying against a proposal, ask yourself what it would need to contain to get your support. Be ready to voice it your concerns and ideas in a respectful manner – with a view to offering idea on how you can support the  proposal.
  6. Use Your Cards. Participants should be given a blue and orange card. Blue means that cool to an idea, not ready to support the proposal yet, or that you have a question. Orange means that you are warm to an idea, or ready to support the proposal. Use your cards each time someone speaks so that the chair can read the wisdom in the room. This helps the meeting to progress smoothly.
  7. Practice Good Communication. Use “I” statements: “I feel…” or “I believe…” whenever possible. Take ownership of your perspective.  When you make a mistake, own that as well. If helpful acknowledge that you have changed your mind or apologize.
  8. Work Towards the Greater Good. Rather than trying to get your own way or prevent something from happening, work for the good of the group. Making decisions is not about getting our own way, but of discerning God’s best hope for the group and community.
  9. Relax. Over time, the process will become familiar and take less time. Be patient.

Conclusion

Learning to make decisions by consensus is a noble endeavor. You can do it! In the long run, you will notice a greater ownership of ideas and the decisions. There will be an enhanced creativity to resolve issues. It will also be easier to put a matter to rest and implement the decision.

9 reasons you may struggle to bring change – and what to do about it! (Pt 1)

When groups first try a consensus approach to discernment they can come up against obstacles. Today I start to look at 8 struggles that prevent consensus decision-making from being effective. Better still I offer responses to each of them!

Other common resistance points are covered in Chapter 6 of The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together  “Yes ….but …. Addressing Resistance”.

1. Tradition. “We’ve always done it this way. Why change?”

This is a very common explanation for why people don’t embrace change. People know what they like and they like what they know. Yet most people don’t usually put it as bluntly as saying “we’ve always done it this way.”

What we usually see is an inbuilt inertia in groups that make any change difficult. The tracks have been laid down over time and that’s the way things run. So the key to maximizing the chance of change is to explore where these tracks are taking you, or discuss the way decisions are made in other contexts, or introduce key elements of a consensus approach into the established processes.

Identify negative outcomes of current processes

For example, bad feelings after meetings, poor decisions, lack of buy-in, exclusion of some people/perspectives, etc. Use an annual review of the performance of your Board, Committee, Congregation, etc as a context in which to raise a discussion on whether your current approach is working for you. This may start a helpful discussion on what needs to change.

Explore alternatives from other contexts

I wonder if the people who resist consensus in meetings use the same methods/processes to make decisions in families, as a couple, or in business negotiations. Certainly, the western parliamentary approach is in sharp contrast to the way in which other cultures have traditionally made decisions. The issue here is “Whose tradition are we talking about?” It is only one tradition and it is a very narrowly applied practice.

There are many opportunities for continuing education for Boards, Committees and church members in general. Create a learning event where alternative ways of making decisions are explored. Perhaps it could be in the framework of understanding how a different cultural group makes decisions, or a workshop on how to engage in dialogue with family members, or invite a local community action group to talk about their work and how they get to agreements and commitment. Often these groups use consensus decision-making because they cannot force volunteers to do anything that they don’t want to do. The focus doesn’t even have to be on church meeting procedures! You can extrapolate later from the learning into that discussion.

Introduce consensus processes into your current meetings

Consensus building values and techniques can be present in a parliamentary style of meeting. As an add-on they will not change a culture but they can provide a taster of what is possible when change is made. Examples of things that a Chairperson can do include: make sure that everyone understands the issues before starting the debate; include more prayer and spiritual disciplines in the meeting; create spaces where alternative voices can be heard; don’t rush to a vote just because it looks like there is a clear majority; and more. Chairpersons should lead into an alternative experience of Christian community around decision-making. Change can be gradual and incremental – until there is ownership of the decision to make real change.

2. Some people need to “win”

Winning is “fun”. It’s natural that when people value a position that they want to see it happen. I’m sure we have all been in that situation. However what is embedded in this comment is insidious. There are people who actively resist and undermine a move to consensus because they know how to get their way under the current rules. Getting their way has become the prime goal and they do not want to empower others to have a chance of changing the outcomes. They want to keep control.

I have met people like this in local and international meetings. It is both sad, disappointing and serious. Changes in the power balance affect who has influence. Some people get this and try to keep ahead of the curve by shutting down the chance for change. There are solutions but they need to be tailored to your context. If this is your situation maybe you need a coach to help you work it through.

However, in addition to handling the pushback from cynical and frightened power brokers, there are conversations that can be fostered. Even people who like to get their preferred decision in a church meeting are willing to count the cost. Very few people embrace a pyrrhic victory.

I am sure that you have seen many examples of where the “win” that was achieved came at a high price. It could be as serious as people leaving the church, a significant drop in income, loss of morale, the development of factions, or loss of support for a pastor. The losses might be more subtle: the person who stops volunteering, loss of a skilled person on the church Board, people don’t turn up to congregational meetings because of the atmosphere, a negative vibe develops in the congregation, etc.

Maybe the people who think they are winning are not winning at all. Develop a case study on how the handling of a decision led to negative consequences for a congregation or group. It doesn’t have to be from your congregation but if there is a recent example I encourage you to be brave enough to name it. Focus particularly on developing a “ledger” of wins on one side and losses on the other side. Get people to put a value (not all will be a $ value) on the “entries” on each side of the ledger. The lesson that people are encouraged to learn is to be aware of the consequences of their actions and to not just focus on the task of “getting the decision I want”.

A great follow up – maybe at the next meeting – is to explore “What could we have done differently that would have avoided or reduced these costs?” That’s where your knowledge of the whole range of consensus-based discernment tools will allow you to shine. The most comprehensive collection of resources for this is in our book The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together 

3. We don’t need cards because everyone here is able to speak up.

This is quite a common perception. The orange and blue cards are a very important part of the Uniting Church in Australia’s consensus process. They are also used in the World Council of Churches, the World Communion of Reformed Churches and other places. They are also often seriously misunderstood.

The idea in this resistance point is that the cards are the way to get attention so that you can get the floor. So if you believe that everyone is able to contribute due to the healthy culture and processes of the meeting then it seems like you don’t need cards. The cards are more than the equivalent of lining up at the microphone to get the Chairperson’s attention. But let’s start the conversation on the terms that it is offered.

In my experience, such a statement is very rarely accurate. There are always people who remain silent. They do so for many reasons. It is not just because they cannot get the attention of the Chair.

As a test for this hypothesis have a person quietly keep tabs on the names of who speaks, the frequency and time taken by various speakers over a few meetings.  Report on the results.  This could make for an interesting conversation.

However, the cards serve a much richer purpose than indicating a desire to speak. Members are to show a card whenever a person makes a contribution. If they are warm to a comment then they display the orange card. If they are cool to the idea or not persuaded by it they show blue. This process encourages active listening. Also, it allows every person to indicate their perspective – without the need for speaking. In fact, the opposite of the opening statement is true. You actually need the cards so that everyone can contribute!

4. Power imbalances

Power is real and some people have it in groups and others do not. When power is used to limit the participation of all people then consensus discernment will struggle. Not all power is malicious or used deliberately to put people down. Although sometimes it is.

For example:

  • Some lay people don’t think they should argue with Ministers
  • In some cultures women or young people don’t value their voice
  • Patriarchy exists in a lot of churches and oppresses women
  • Language and education can give more power to some participants
  • Knowledge is power – who understands the business or process best?
  • What other examples can you add?
Plan to deal with power

You are very wise not to underestimate the importance of power dynamics. So once you have taken it seriously it’s important to do strategic thinking ahead of time on how to address power imbalances.

There are a number of strategies available in addition to a well led use of consensus processes. Consensus processes make it possible to address power imbalances but they have to be used very well to do so.

Preparation includes thinking about the power imbalances and what strategies can be put in place to limit their power. Examples include: deciding when translation is required; how to ensure everyone has the same information; when small group discussions (maybe in cultural, gender or age groups) can help people to find their voice that can then be fed back into the larger group. As you prepare for your meeting list the power dynamics and line up alongside them the tools that help to overcome them.

Also the leaders must model alternative ways of being in community. They  must demonstrate and support a culture of collaboration and equality.

Conclusion

I encourage you to respond to pushback in a way that is respectful and consistent with the values of consensus discernment. Ask questions so that you understand what they are saying. Probe for what is behind the comments. Assume goodwill until there is a good reason to do otherwise. Strengthen your fellowship in the face of difference.

Once you understand the issue before you there are simple and practical things that you can do that make a constructive response. Don’t argue but rather invite exploration through the types of processes offered in this article.

Change is possible! Next week I’ll look at some other things that may cause consensus to struggle.

‪

Why isn’t consensus embraced?

If consensus is so wonderful then why doesn’t every group take it up? In a recent post, I spoke about 16 wins that come from using consensus-building approaches. So, if it achieves so may good results why is there resistance to consensus-based discernment?

Nothing is broken

There’s an old saying: “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it!” There are many people who think that the parliamentary model works just fine. So they don’t see any point in going to all the trouble of learning this newfangled consensus stuff!

The people who are content with the current approach are the people for whom it works. From the perspective of people for whom English is a second language, the less well educated, women, young people and the marginalized the current way decisions are made is broken. Ask these people if a parliamentary / Roberts Rules of Order approach is good for them.

It is also broken because way too many decisions do not get implemented. The same old issues keep returning. Decisions are made and they don’t get put into effect. Decision-making that doesn’t result in action is broken!

Consensus approaches are resisted because people with influence claim that nothing is wrong. Check it out for yourself – are they right? If you want to encourage consensus discernment processes in your church then start pointing out where the current model is broken.

Fear of Losing Power

As the old saying goes: “winners are grinners”. Who would not be happy with a process that improves their chance of getting what they want? So, naturally, people resist consensus discernment when its introduction threatens their power.

When changes are made in a system the equilibrium is upset. A repositioning of power takes place. There will be resistance from those who fear losing power. Consensus – despite all its benefits – is not taken up because it has enemies.

If you want to encourage consensus do not be naive. Expect opposition and plan ahead for how you can make and support the case for change in a highly ethical way.

Obstacles to Consensus in the Culture

By far the biggest obstacle to the embrace of consensus discernment is culture. Basically, we have it in our head that some things are valuable / sensible / right and others are not.

So in Western culture, we find the following.

  • ideas that are expressed in clumsy ways or tentative terms are regarded as inferior to those presented in clear and assertive words
  • asking questions is seen as nitpicking and a diversion from the main discussion
  • complexity is avoided in favor of pithy statements and confident speeches
  • passion is alright but don’t show too many feelings
  • analysing and exploring implications is seen as going off on a tangent – never regarded as a good thing!
  • being productive / fast is valued whereas going slowly is frowned upon
  • questions are perceived as challenges – as though the questioner has done something wrong
  • presenting an alternative point of view is seen as being negative or a conflict that must be solved as quickly as possible
  • once a majority view is said to exist everyone else is expected to get on board or be seen as a spoiler

Culture is hard to overcome. If you want to bring change you will have to challenge the prevailing culture and affirm its alternatives. Think about some of the ways that you can do this in a meeting. What affirmations can you offer to the people who are devalued? What interventions can you make or statements of another way can you offer? Find and affirm values from the Christian faith that align with consensus approaches to discernment.

Conclusion

Change to consensus needs to happen! There are many good reasons why this is so – at least 16!  Consensus is good for individuals and groups and yet this is not universally recognised. Resistance comes from a lack of awareness of the problems, fear of losing power and the influence of culture.

Support the people who experience the pain of the current approach, educate others about its limitations, take the power issues seriously and teach and model an alternative church culture.

Consensus-building: 16 wins you get now!

Consensus-building approaches to decision-making are often criticised for taking too long to get a result. While I don’t agree with this view I want to encourage you! There are lots of great wins to be had. They come long before and after a decision is reached.

Values Shape Individuals and Organisations

Consensus-building rests on some key values. They include

  • full participation
  • seeking mutual understanding
  • desiring and generating inclusive solutions
  • accepting shared responsibility to find answers to challenges

When these principles of participatory decision-making are employed in churches and other organisations then they produce significant results. Consensus-building approaches to discernment build stronger individuals, stronger groups and stronger agreements.

Stronger Individuals

  • Improved leadership skills

By learning to attend well and to support others, people enhance their ability to lead in many different situations.

  • Stronger powers of reasoning

By taking into account all the relevant information people learn to discern what is important and how the parts fit together. Generally, they get better at working things out!

  • More confidence

People who are affirmed about their contribution feel good about themselves. This enhances their willingness to make a contribution at other times.

  • More commitment

Consensus-building assumes that people see themselves as part of a team. Its foundational assumption is that we are in this together. You get what you expect from people! Groups that regularly use consensus-building techniques experience higher levels of commitment from the membership of the group.

  • Better communication skills

Any process that expects people to listen carefully, check that they have heard accurately, and to carefully and respectfully present their views is a training ground for good communication skills! People don’t lose these skills when they leave a meeting that uses consensus-building processes.

  • Greater ability to assume broader and more difficult responsibilities

A key value is that everyone in a group shares responsibility for the work and the outcome. So, this broadens people’s horizons about what their role is in the group. Their success in offering leadership in the consensus-building process gives them confidence that they can do it elsewhere.

Stronger Groups

  • Greater ability to utilize multiple talents

If your decision-making process expects you to use the insights, experience, wisdom and personalities of everyone – why wouldn’t that spill over to other times? Discovering and valuing multiple talents benefits a group in every circumstance.

  • Access to more types of information

Groups can be closed or open. They can be inward-looking or seeking the best information from wherever they find it. It is a no brainer to work out which groups will thrive. You can foster and honor an organisational culture that seeks the best information from whatever source is appropriate.

  • Development of a respectful, supportive atmosphere

When members of a group know that they are respected and learn to support each other it makes for a great workplace, church or group. These types of groups just work better! So use a consensus-building approach to discernment because it significantly reduces combative and disrespectful interactions. Win!

  • Clear procedures for handling group dynamics

Groups are complex. However with the values of full participation, seeking after mutual understanding, desiring and generating inclusive solutions, and accepting that people share the responsibility to find answers to their challenges the procedures are in place to handle any kind of situation in your group.

  • Increased capacity for tackling difficult situations

A group that draws on all members, is open to generating new ideas, is patient, respectful and positive has the ability to tackle complex matters. Put in place the values that undergird consensus-building discernment. Then you will ensure that your group can handle more difficult situations than when people were just told what to do.

Stronger Agreements

  • More ideas

Generating more options for action means it’s far more likely that you will come up with something that works.

  • Higher quality ideas

It makes sense that if you generate more ideas that the quality will go up. Also, the commitment of consensus-building processes to quality information, from wherever it is sourced, provides the seedbed from which great ideas can grow.

  • Solutions that integrate everyone’s interests and hopes

When discussions focus on needs, hopes and interests then it is possible to find a lot of common ground. However, when the focus is on positions and “what I want” people get locked in. Consensus-building discernment understands that people have many interests embedded in an issue. It identifies these on the way to developing an agreed course of action.

  • Wiser decisions

When the perspectives of everyone are taken seriously then the best mind of a group can come to the fore. Churches that make decisions by consensus (ie aiming for 100% support) appreciate that wisdom is not always the property of the majority. Sometimes the wisdom is about the timing of actions or that further things need to be done before implementation.

  • More reliable follow through

If people don’t see their needs being met in an agreement then it will not get implemented. Strong agreements happen when people see their hopes realised in a decision. There is no process that is more likely to produce high levels of buy in than a consensus-building model.

Conclusion

Using consensus-building approaches to decision-making gives participants a great experience. They learn new skills and create better options for action. This experience gives a group great wins in addition to the quality of the decisions that they make!

The World Deacons Executive change to consensus

This guest post on change to consensus is from Rev (Deacon) Sandy Boyce of the Uniting Church in Australia. Sandy is President of the DIAKONIA World Federation – http://www.diakonia-world.org

The change to consensus by the Executive of the DIAKONIA World Federation has been a huge positive. Change from a traditional meeting format to using the tools of consensus processes has increased inclusion, strengthened the group and empowered the leadership of all the members. There is no going back after the change to consensus!

Why change?

‘Slow down – please!’

‘Please stop using English colloquial expressions!’

‘Please – give us some time to catch up’.

Such were the pleas from people for whom English is a second or third language. When working together on a world committee comprised of people from many countries, cultures and language groups the way we communicate together is very important.

The World Executive (2013-17) was comprised of people from North America, Australia, England, Tanzania, Switzerland, Germany, Norway and the Philippines. In 2018 we begin with a new committee that will again draw people together from many countries and languages. All share a common desire to work towards a common purpose through the DIAKONIA World Federation.

We only meet face to face once a year, so relationship building is especially key to a successful meeting. When we spend so much time in a business meeting the quality of our fellowship at that time is significant to the quality of our relationships as a group.

How the change was introduced

When elected as President, DIAKONIA World Federation, one of my responsibilities was to organise and chair the annual meeting.  In the meeting are elected representatives from diaconal associations around the world. English is the medium for our meetings.

I had been keen to introduce the consensus decision making process into our meetings. Interestingly, some members had seen the cards in use and were not keen to use them. I was shocked to discover that the way they had seen the cards being used simply replicated a traditional ‘voting’ system. There people held their cards aloft and the cards were counted to see who was ‘for’ (orange) and who was ‘against’ (blue). So, the introduction of the consensus decision making process had to address the previous experience of the misuse of the cards and process. In addition it needed to capture the essence and energy of shared discernment and the consensus decision making process.

What I hadn’t anticipated was that the consensus decision making process would be embraced so quickly. In a multi-lingual context it provided an opportunity for people to express in non-verbal ways their response to matters being discussed. They could also visually see how others were responding. The change to using consensus building processes in our meeting enabled discussion and discernment to continue in an informed way. People better understood what was happening compared to the way they had to quickly come to a decision in a typical ‘business’ meeting. It transcended language in a way that enabled more fulsome participation in decision making.

Additional tools used to help the change

I introduced the yellow ‘question’ card. This proved invaluable, especially for those for whom English was not their first language. For some on our World Executive, English was only one of a cluster of languages they spoke. Having to listen and speak in English while internally processing their thinking in another language presents special challenges.

The yellow card ‘democratised’ the process, in that all members of the committee could feel free to ask questions. Having shown the yellow card, a member could take all the time they needed to frame their question and speak to it.

Others would be especially attentive to understand the gist of the question, and any further comments, and to discern the implications for the discussion at hand. The card gave people confidence to participate more fully. Our meetings have been enriched as a consequence. The privilege accorded to native English in meetings was (in part) addressed by this opportunity . This change strengthened the strategies for intentionally making space to listen well to questions and comments that is inherent in a consensus approach.

Then, I sensed the need for a further card.  The orange and blue cards remained the colours related to the consensus decision making process itself. But this purple card served another purpose. It is used by people who experienced (and expressed) a constant frustration at the speed that native speakers of English spoke during meetings.

Those listening could not keep up with the internal process that was required to convert English to their own language. People need to think and process, and then consider a response, before converting back to English. Everyone wants to, and should be able to offer, a response to the committee. However when they were ready the discussion may have moved on and they missed an opportunity to contribute. All of this internal processing activity happened silently. Such silence from non-English speakers could easily be construed as agreement. In fact it often signaled active internal processing of language.

Native speakers of English from different countries speak with such a wide diversity of accents. This requires a different way of listening. Unwittingly using colloquial expressions that did not translate easily even for speakers of English happens a lot. Hence the pleas of those who were not native speakers of English for people to ‘slow down’, ‘stop using colloquial expressions’, and to create some space for processing what they have heard.

The purple card had the specific purpose of providing a visual clue to the person speaking – slow down. They needed to be more attentive to the process of speaking and listening. The exasperation and frustration gave way to a greater sense of inclusion and participation.

Was the change worth it?

Our DIAKONIA World Executive meetings have been enriched by the consensus decision making process, and the use of the blue and orange cards. The use of the two additional cards that have been integrated into the process have enabled more fulsome participation and understanding across the breadth of the membership of the DIAKONIA World Executive.

The experience has been a very positive one for the Executive members. I strongly commend that groups take seriously how to involve people from different language groups and cultures. Consensus processes and tool are the key to making an effective change.