Consensus in decision-making meetings
Using consensus in a decision-making process implies that all people who attend a meeting are united in the decision that is made at the meeting, and support the implementation of that decision. Consensus decision-making is radically different from majority decision-making or decision-making by voting. In these methods, the outcome produces winners and losers. Here, I share about this method, as we practiced it in Findhorn Foundation (www.findhorn.org.) I write in past tense, as I no longer work there, however, the center continues to use innovative management methods.
To arrive at a unanimous decision, not only once, but on a regular basis, in decision-making meetings, committee members may follow the guidelines I describe on my page “Decision-making Using Intuition Tools.”
Let’s say, a decision has been made, using such guidelines. Thus, committee members have had ample opportunity to input facts and air their views and concerns. When a decision has been made, one person still disagrees with the outcome.
When one person has a different view than all the rest, the group asks that person: Are you willing to be a loyal minority and accept that we go ahead with this plan? Most of the time a person who objects to a decision is able to accept this, once they have been able to share clearly why they do not agree. By letting the others know that they don’t agree, they do not need to feel responsible for the outcome of the project, but they can still support the others to go ahead.
Occasionally, it happens that a person does not feel able to be a loyal minority. He just can’t. In such a situation, the group decides to wait, even if waiting delays important steps or derails the plan altogether. The group may wait two weeks and then meet again, to explore if anything has changed. Or, they may scrap the project. But the group does not forcefully override even a single individual, not even in a group where 200 people say yes, and one person says no.
The notion is, if even just one person ends up resenting the project and feeling very uncomfortable with the plan, the energies become split. Conflicting undercurrents undermine the project, if not immediately, most surely, eventually. The group accepts that the timing or the circumstances are not in place. They trust that perhaps this project needs to wait a year, needs to take place elsewhere, or needs a different management team. Only when all people involved are able to support a project, it can progress smoothly.
In Findhorn Foundation, we considered it important to respect everyone’s stance. Sarah Marriott, a staff member, used to comment (I am paraphrasing): “If we would use majority decision-making, we would leave some people with a feeling of being run over, left out or not heard. A person who feels that way is like a leak in a bucket. Even if the leak is very small, in course of time a lot of water leaks out, in fact, all energy eventually leaks away when people are divided.” Thus, in our decision-making processes, we strongly endeavored to stick to our practice of consensus.
Pros and cons of consensus decision-making
The advantage of consensus decision-making is precisely that all the energy is aligned in the same direction, with the whole group working enthusiastically together. Even though the decision-making process may become significantly longer, once a decision has been made, people emerge from the process knowing clearly why they are engaging in the task and they are truly motivated. Because they have examined their own and their colleagues’ practical as well as ethical and philosophical arguments for and against the plan, they are likely to be very committed to the plan as they move ahead with it.
The disadvantage is that decisions may be delayed to an extent where the delay disrupts progress and slows down work significantly. The persons who want to spearhead the project may lose their initial enthusiasm and excitement for the project and become frustrated with the delay.
A story illustrating the advantage:
One time, we were eight people in the education management committee, discussing a proposal. The youth group in our local community approached our committee requesting a loan of £30,000 (British pounds, equivalent to around US $47,000) for building a small building, to be a gathering place for young people, to be used for weekly meetings, classes and workshops for young people.
After due discussion, we sat quietly in a circle and one of us led an attunement. We asked if it would be the right step forward to grant the youth group the loan they requested. After a few minutes of silence, we opened our eyes and began the sharing around our circle. Each committee member shared their insights. To our surprise, most of us had received a whole new perspective on the issue, in our silence. As the sharing progressed, most of us said we felt we should not go ahead and loan the amount to the youth group, instead we should simply donate the amount to them. Two people had a different insight. One said we should not provide the money, the other said we should offer them a loan. The two people who had a different view, agreed to go ahead with the decision most of us wanted. Thus, a decision was made to donate £30,000 to the project, and the youth group members were stunned and overjoyed when they were informed. Within a few months, the new building was constructed, with great energy and excitement. If you travel to Findhorn Foundation, ask to see the building!
A story illustrating the disadvantage:
One time, a committee that oversaw the day to day management of Cluny Hill College needed to decide what color to choose for the new carpet to be installed in one of our main workshop rooms (The Beech Tree Room). The meeting ended up with people being divided and no decision could be made. A couple of weeks later, a new meeting was held. Again, people could not agree on the color, and the decision was postponed. A series of subsequent meetings were held, and again and again the decision was delayed due to lack of consensus. We began cracking jokes about the fact that we were able to make big decisions involving large investments in money and time, but we could not pull off a seemingly simple decision like that. The jokes continued and the meetings continued. For several months, we all had to put up with the worn-out, damaged old carpet while the drama continued. I was not part of these processes so I do not know the details of how the group finally resolved the issue. As far as the story was told, eventually some people, out of sheer exhaustion, gave up their stance, a color was agreed upon and the new carpet was finally put in.
Consensus in action
In the Findhorn Foundation’s history, major decisions were made using consensus process. The group which initially formed the trust called Findhorn Foundation lived in a trailer park – in Scotland called a caravan park. The caravan park was owned and operated by a local man, and Findhorn Foundation members rented spaces there for their homes. After many years, in the early 1980s the owner decided to put the caravan park up for sale. This was a chance for the Findhorn Foundation members to become owners of the land they lived on and had transformed from barren grasslands into abundant vegetable gardens. In order to purchase the land, the trust had to take out a large mortgage. The proposal to buy the land would necessitate members living frugally for many years while paying off the mortgage.
In a landmark meeting, the members – a group of around 200 people – were asked if they could support a purchase of the caravan park. One after another, members stood up in support of going ahead, until almost all people were standing up. Only a handful of people remained uncertain or opposed. After some sharing and discussion, a few of them shifted and said yes, and the others agreed to be a loyal minority. The decision was made. The transaction took place. During the first few years after the purchase, we all worked on paying off the mortgage, while also with great excitement drawing up landscaping plans and expanding vegetable gardens and park areas.
Reflections
One night, a fire broke out in the dining room at Cluny Hill College, one of Findhorn Foundation’s workshop facilities. It so happened that Eric, the facilities manager, was a former firefighter. As he woke up, he took immediate charge, organized the evacuation of (I believe) around 60 people and had the fire put out safely with no one being harmed. One day Eric told me with a big smile that this was the one and only chance he ever had, in all his years working at Findhorn Foundation, to make instant decisions and be entirely in charge, ordering everyone where to go and what to do, moment by moment, with no discussion and not waiting for consensus! Perhaps Eric’s intuition told him to take charge. There is a time and a place for everything. Consensus decision-making works in some but not all circumstances. Intuition, though, is probably always a valuable tool.
Do you have any thoughts or comments? What are your own experiences?
Brita Adkinson, January 2012
Leadership knowledge 