Fist-to-Five Consensus-Building



Fist-to-Five Consensus-Building | |

|  |

|INTRODUCTION: When a group comes to consensus on a matter, it means that everyone in the group can support the decision; they don’t all |

|have to think it’s the best decision, but they all agree they can live with it.  This tool is an easy-to-use way to build consensus among |

|diverse groups. |

|  |

|POINT TO PONDER: "It is the law of love that rules mankind. Had violence, i.e. hate, ruled us we should have become extinct long ago. And |

|yet, the tragedy of it is that the so-called civilized men and nations conduct themselves as if the basis of society was violence." - |

|Mahatma Gandhi |

|  |

|DIRECTIONS: Whenever a group is discussing a possible solution or coming to a decision on any matter, Fist-to-Five is a good tool to |

|determine what each person’s opinion is at any given time. |

|  |

| |

|COMBINING YOUR TEAM’S IDEAS: BUILDING CONSENSUS USING FIST-TO-FIVE |

| |

| |

|  |

|  |

|To use this technique the Team Leader restates a decision the group may make and asks everyone to show their level of support. Each person |

|responds by showing a fist or a number of fingers that corresponds to their opinion. |

|  |

|Fist |

|A no vote - a way to block consensus. I need to talk more on the proposal and require changes for it to pass. |

|  |

|1 Finger |

|I still need to discuss certain issues and suggest changes that should be made. |

|  |

|2 Fingers |

|I am more comfortable with the proposal but would like to discuss some minor issues. |

|  |

|3 Fingers |

|I’m not in total agreement but feel comfortable to let this decision or a proposal pass without further discussion. |

|  |

|4 Fingers |

|I think it’s a good idea/decision and will work for it. |

|  |

|5 Fingers |

|It’s a great idea and I will be one of the leaders in implementing it. |

|  |

|If anyone holds up fewer than three fingers, they should be given the opportunity to state their objections and the team should address |

|their concerns. Teams continue the Fist-to-Five process until they achieve consensus (a minimum of three fingers or higher) or determine |

|they must move on to the next issue.) |

|  |

|  |

|Suggested Citation |

|Fletcher, A. (2002). FireStarter Youth Power Curriculum: Participant Guidebook. Olympia, WA: Freechild Project |

Fist-to-five Example

When I was a student at Wesleyan, there was always debate about the schools uni-sex bathrooms. At one point, the university gave each dorm hall the opportunity to come to a consensus decision about whether or not their bathrooms would be uni-sex or divided into male and female bathrooms. The university required that the decision be made by unanimous consensus. Put another way, everyone in the dorm hall had to consent to the ultimate decisions. The narrative below approximates the decision made by using the fist-to-five method.

At the beginning of the meeting, the dorm RA tells the group that in talking to many occupants of the dorm, it seems like the majority of students felt that the bathrooms should remain completely co-ed. The RA puts that policy up for a fist-to-five vote.

Ten students put up five fingers

Five students put up three fingers

Two students put up two fingers

Two students put up one finger.

The RA asks the students who have one or two fingers up to state their concerns. Three of the students speak about the terrible state of the stall bathrooms because some male dorm mates do not put up the seat when going to the bathroom. One student says she just isn’t comfortable sharing a bathroom with boys and that she is a cultural background that does not believe in men and women mixing in these kind of private spaces.

The RA asks the group for solutions to these issues. Dorm mates suggest that a very clear policy of the seat being raised and put back down (with a rule that the boys will be called upon to clean the bathroom if the rule is violated) is throw around. The RA says asks the group if they policy includes an amendment that includes this new rule, how did the group feel about it:

Seventeen students put up a mix of three, four or five fingers.

One student puts up one finger.

The same student who expressed her concern about male and female private spaces is still unhappy with the new policy. The RA, knowing that unanimous consensus has not been reached, asks the group to come up with new solutions. One student asks if the girl cannot just go to another dorm to go to the bathroom to which another student responds that she would not agree to that because that seemed unfair that the girl is punished for feeling differently than the rest of the group. A few other students suggest that it is not fair that the majority of students have to suffer just because one student feels uncomfortable. The RA realizes the conversation is moving in a negative direction. He asks the group if there is anything else they could add onto the policy to respect the wishes of the individual. One student suggests that there could be a set time when the bathroom is women-only. There is a lot of discussion about that proposal. The RA decides to put the new policy up for a vote. Because there have been two addendums, the RA restates the policy as a whole: The policy would maintain co-ed bathrooms, with the boys agreeing to put up the seat and put it back down (they will have to clean the bathrooms each time the rule is violated) and the bathroom will be women only from 8:00 – 8:15am each morning and 9:00 – 9:15pm each evening. The one dissenter will need to use women-only bathroom in next dorm if she needs bathroom during different time periods. The vote turns out like this:

ten students give the proposal a 5

two students give the proposal a 4

six students give the proposal a 3

The proposal has reached unanimous consent. Hooray!

Consensus decision-making

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the decision making process. For the distributed computing problem, see Consensus (computer science). For the Wikipedia policy on consensus, see Wikipedia:Consensus.

Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the consent of all participants. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together.[1] It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and the social and political effects of using this process.

As a decision-making process, consensus decision-making aims to be:[2]

• Agreement Seeking: A consensus decision making process attempts to help everyone get what they need.[2]

• Collaborative: Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a decision that meets the concerns of all group members as much as possible.[3]

• Cooperative: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than competing for personal preferences.

• Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present, and amend proposals.

• Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process.

• Participatory: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.[4]

STEPS TO CONSENSUS

Typically, each decision arising from an agenda item follows through a simple structure:

• Discussion of the item: The item is discussed with the goal of identifying opinions and information on the topic at hand. The general direction of the group and potential proposals for action are often identified during the discussion.

• Formation of a proposal: Based on the discussion a formal decision proposal on the issue is presented to the group.

• Call for consensus: The facilitator of the decision-making body calls for consensus on the proposal. Each member of the group usually must actively state their agreement with the proposal, often by using a hand gesture or raising a colored card, to avoid the group interpreting silence or inaction as agreement. The number of blocks is counted to determine if this step's consent threshold is satisfied.

• Identification and addressing of concerns: If consensus is not achieved, each dissenter presents his or her concerns on the proposal, potentially starting another round of discussion to address or clarify the concern.

• Modification of the proposal: The proposal is amended, re-phrased or ridered in an attempt to address the concerns of the decision-makers. The process then returns to the call for consensus and the cycle is repeated until a satisfactory decision passes the consent threshold for the group.

[pic]

[pic]

Flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process.

Roles

The consensus decision-making process often has several roles which are designed to make the process run more effectively. Although the name and nature of these roles varies from group to group, the most common are the facilitator, a timekeeper, an empath and a secretary or notes taker. Not all decision-making bodies use all of these roles, although the facilitator position is almost always filled, and some groups use supplementary roles, such as a Devil's advocate or greeter. Some decision-making bodies opt to rotate these roles through the group members in order to build the experience and skills of the participants, and prevent any perceived concentration of power.[24]

The common roles in a consensus meeting are:

• Facilitator: As the name implies, the role of the facilitator is to help make the process of reaching a consensus decision easier. Facilitators accept responsibility for moving through the agenda on time; ensuring the group adheres to the mutually agreed-upon mechanics of the consensus process; and, if necessary, suggesting alternate or additional discussion or decision-making techniques, such as go-arounds, break-out groups or role-playing.[33][34] Some consensus groups use two co-facilitators. Shared facilitation is often adopted to diffuse the perceived power of the facilitator and create a system whereby a co-facilitator can pass off facilitation duties if he or she becomes more personally engaged in a debate.[35]

• Timekeeper: The purpose of the timekeeper is to ensure the decision-making body keeps to the schedule set in the agenda. Effective timekeepers use a variety of techniques to ensure the meeting runs on time including: giving frequent time updates, ample warning of short time, and keeping individual speakers from taking an excessive amount of time.[24]

• Empath or 'Vibe Watch': The empath, or 'vibe watch' as the position is sometimes called, is charged with monitoring the 'emotional climate' of the meeting, taking note of the body language and other non-verbal cues of the participants. Defusing potential emotional conflicts, maintaining a climate free of intimidation and being aware of potentially destructive power dynamics, such as sexism or racism within the decision-making body, are the primary responsibilities of the empath.[33]

• Note taker: The role of the notes taker or secretary is to document the decisions, discussion and action points of the decision-making body.

is not Groupthink

Consensus seeks to improve solidarity in the long run. Accordingly it should not be confused with unanimity in the immediate situation which is often a symptom of groupthink. Studies of effective consensus process usually indicate a shunning of unanimity or "illusion of unanimity"[56] that does not hold up as a group comes under real world pressure (when dissent reappears). Cory Doctorow, Ralph Nader and other proponents of deliberative democracy or judicial-like methods view the explicit dissent as a symbol of strength. Lawrence Lessig considers it a major strength of working projects like public wikis.[57] Schutt,[58] Starhawk[59] and other practitioners of direct action focus on the hazards of apparent agreement followed by action in which group splits become dangerously obvious.

Whatever one thinks of the merits of seeking a unanimous agreement in a particular situation, in general unanimous, or apparently unanimous, decisions have numerous drawbacks.[citation needed] They may be symptoms of a systemic bias, a rigged process (where an agenda is not published in advance or changed when it becomes clear who is present to consent), fear of speaking one's mind, a lack of creativity (to suggest alternatives) or even a lack of courage (to go further along the same road to a more extreme solution that would not achieve unanimous consent).

Unanimity is achieved when the full group apparently consents to a decision. It has disadvantages insofar as further disagreement, improvements or better ideas then remain hidden, but effectively ends the debate moving it to an implementation phase. Some consider all unanimity a form of groupthink, and some experts [5] propose "coding systems...for detecting the illusion of unanimity symptom." In Consensus is not Unanimity, consensus practitioner and activist leader Starhawk wrote:

Many people think of consensus as simply an extended voting method in which every one must cast their votes the same way. Since unanimity of this kind only rarely occurs in groups with more than one member, groups that try to use this kind of process usually end up being either extremely frustrated or coercive. Either decisions are never made (leading to the demise of the group, its conversion into a social group that does not accomplish any tasks), they are made covertly, or some group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority dominates, sometimes a minority, sometimes an individual who employs "the block". But no matter how it is done, it is NOT consensus. [6]

The confusion between unanimity and consensus, in other words, usually causes consensus decision-making to fail and the group will then either revert to majority or supermajority rule or disband.

Most robust models of consensus exclude uniformly unanimous decisions and require at least documentation of minority concerns. Some state clearly that unanimity is not consensus but rather evidence of intimidation, lack of imagination, lack of courage, failure to include all voices, or deliberate exclusion of the contrary views.

The most famous unanimous decision in the Western canon illustrates all those failures; New Testament historian Elaine Pagels cites the Sanhedrin's unanimous vote to convict Jesus of Nazareth. To a Jewish audience familiar with that court's requirement to set free any person unanimously convicted as not having a proper defense, Pagels proposes that the story is intended to signal the injustice of unanimous rush to agreement and Jesus' lack of a defender.[15] She cites the shift away from this view and towards preference for visible unanimity as a factor in later "demonization" of Jews, pagans, heretics (notably Gnostics) and others who disagreed with orthodox views in later Christianity. Unanimity, in other words, became a priority where it had been an anathema.

Some formal models based on graph theory attempt to explore the implications of suppressed dissent and subsequent sabotage of the group as it takes action [7]

Extremely high-stakes decision-making, such as judicial decisions of appeals courts, always require some such explicit documentation. Consent however is still observed that defies factional explanations. Nearly 40% of Supreme Court of US decisions, for example, are unanimous, though often for widely varying reasons. "Consensus in Supreme Court voting, particularly the extreme consensus of unanimity, has often puzzled Court observers who adhere to ideological accounts of judicial decision making." [8]. Historical evidence is mixed on whether particular Justices' views were suppressed in favour of public unity. [9]

Another method to achieve more agreement to satisfy a strict threshold a voting process under which all members of the group have a strategic incentive to agree rather than block.[45] However, this makes it very difficult to tell the difference between those who support the decision and those who merely tactically tolerate it for the incentive. Once they receive that incentive, they may undermine or refuse to implement the agreement in various and non-obvious ways. In general voting systems avoid allowing offering incentives (or "bribes") to change a heartfelt vote.

• Abilene paradox: Consensus decision-making is susceptible to all forms of groupthink, the most dramatic being the Abilene paradox. In the Abilene paradox, a group can unanimously agree on a course of action that no individual member of the group desires because no one individual is willing to go against the perceived will of the decision-making body.[60]

• Time Consuming: Since consensus decision-making focuses on discussion and seeks the input of all participants, it can be a time-consuming process. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions need to be made speedily or where it is not possible to canvass the opinions of all delegates in a reasonable period of time. Additionally, the time commitment required to engage in the consensus decision-making process can sometimes act as a barrier to participation for individuals unable or unwilling to make the commitment.[61] However, once a decision has been reached it can be acted on more quickly than a decision handed down. American businessmen complained that in negotiations with a Japanese company, they had to discuss the idea with everyone even the janitor, yet once a decision was made the Americans found the Japanese were able to act much quicker because everyone was on board, while the Americans had to struggle with internal opposition.[62]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download