Leverage Points in Consensus

I've got nearly 40 years under my belt making decisions with consensus in cooperative groups. In addition, I've been a consensus trainer for more than 25 years, and I've been writing about it for more than 15.

In preparation for an all-day consensus training with a forming community in Boston this weekend, I spent time distilling what I've learned into a double handful of key places where there's persistent misunderstanding or confusion about consensus. I offer them here (in no particular order), with the idea that handling these well will almost certainly lead to consistently good results.

1. Committing to creating cooperative culture
The mainstream culture is competitive, hierarchic, and adversarial. You can't just transplant consensus into the competitive culture that we've spent all our lives being steeped in and expect good results. That's just unanimous voting, and it's damn hard to get anything done.

The litmus test is how people respond when encountering strongly viewpoints different than their own about nontrivial matters. Do they respond with tension, combativeness, or capitulation; or do they respond with curiosity, and openness to having their opinion shift?

An ancillary aspect of this shows up in the way people recreationally bash meetings, expecting them to go poorly. Expectations have a profound impact on results, and we need to develop more hope and a positive attitude about expecting productive, unifying meetings if we're going start having them.

2. Staying on topic
One the principal ways that groups squander meeting time and dissipate energy is through participants lacking sufficient discipline to stay on topic. The corollary concern is facilitators who are not crisp about defining the topic (which complicates participants knowing whether they're coloring outside the lines).

To be fair, sometimes this is more a lack of sophistication about how to usefully section a complex topic into digestible chunks, the end result of which is the miasma of everyone being on topic, but the topic being too large for the group to be able to work with the all-over-the-place input.

3. Minimizing repetition
The companion nightmare to off-topic comments are those that are repeated. Mostly people repeat because they were unsure they were heard the first time.

Sometimes this is due to the speaker failing to distinguish being heard and being agreed with. Sometimes it's traceable to weak facilitation (it's awkward interrupting someone) or to facilitators who are unsure of their mandate. Sometimes it's because people cannot resist the temptation to say in their own words what someone else has already contributed‚ much of which is ego management.

Hint #1: If facilitators are diligent about summarizing input as the conversation progresses, it can help cut down wonderfully on people inspired to repeat themselves.

4. Dealing solely with plenary worthy topics in plenary
Most groups never discuss what things are an appropriate use of time in meetings of the whole (plenaries). When there is no clear boundary about what's an acceptable way to focus plenaries, the consequence is that almost anyone (or any committee) can suggest a topic and it's hard to draw the line The default is that any topic is allowed, which is an invitation to trail by minutia.

This problem is compounded by facilitators who are unwilling to step in and hold the group's feet to the fire when they drift below plenary level (perhaps to extend the pleasure of making decisions and clearing up ambiguity once they gather momentum on questions that started out as plenary worthy).

Hint #2: In addressing Points #2-4 above, you need to bless facilitators with clear authority to step in when the group strays.

Hint #3: It will be hard to enforce Point #4 unless you have a clear sense of how to delegate cleanly and effectively.

5. Working purposefully with emotions
Even though the baseline assumption is that groups will conduct business by using their best thinking, people know, process, and transmit information in far richer ways, including emotionally, intuitively, and kinesthetically. It's especially important to understand the need for how to work with emotional input. 

While it can be a wild card that many are afraid of (mainly because most of us were raised without good models for how to do it well), emotions are an important source of energy and information, and it can be huge for groups to develop the capacity to recognize and work constructively with feelings relevant to the topics at hand.

Hint #4: You can welcome feelings and object to aggression.

6. Sequencing work such that proposals follow discussion; not the other way around
If you take to heart Point #4, then it's important to not develop proposals until the whole group has had a decent chance to identify the factors that a good response to an issue needs to address. If you start with proposals, committees and managers get invested in their answers and it skews the consideration of the issue unhelpfully.

If a topic is worthy of whole group consideration, don't start working on answers until you've agreed on what factors need to be balanced—then you can turn it over to committees to draft solutions.

7. Resolving issues by balancing interests; not by compromising positions
Often enough, groups get hung up on debating the relative merits of conflicting solutions. Will there be a winner and a loser? Should you pick a middle position (perhaps cutting the baby in half)?

In resolving the question of how best to respond to an issue in the dynamic where there are multiple ideas about how best to proceed, it generally works much better if you probe potential solutions for the interests from which they were derived, and then try to do your problem solving at that level. Positions can be diametrically opposed when underlying values are not. The gold is found by balancing values, while eschewing a battle of positions. 

8. Knowing when (and how) to close the deal
There is an art to knowing when there is little or no new information forthcoming, and it's time to move toward problem solving. 

While the discussion phase of the examination is expansive and might be characterized by impassioned advocacy, when you shift to problem solving you enter a contractive phase where it's time to lay down advocacy and think about bridging. It's important both to steer clear of problem solving until the discussion phase has been completed, and then to shift the energy of the problem solving phase so that the group comes together.

9. Understanding blocks and stand asides
In consensus it's possible for a single individual to stop the group from accepting a proposal. While that's a powerful right, it's paired with a powerful responsibility to use that right only thoughtfully and with compassion. 

While blocks should be rare (because they come at the end of the consideration, and healthy consensus groups rarely test for approval of a proposal for which it is know that there are unresolved concerns), it is essential that consensus groups define the legitimate basis for blocks and the process by which the legitimacy of blocks will be examined. Woe betide the group that postpones defining the norms for blocks until they are in the dynamic they want to apply them to. Talk about a train wreck!

10. Knowing when to get help
While it's well and good that groups aspire to handle all that comes their way, occasionally you'll find yourself in over your head, where there is not sufficient neutrality or skill among the membership to safely navigate the issue(s) at hand. Groups are well advised to prepare ahead for that possibility, both by investing in training (to enhance the skills of the group), and by identifying talented facilitators among other cooperative groups in the area who can be asked to help out in time of need (perhaps in exchange for your returning the favor when they get stuck).

Consensus Challenges: Closing the Deal

This is the continuation of a blog series started June 7 in which I'm addressing a number of issues in consensus. Today's topic is Closing the Deal.

I. When do you know enough to act? [posted June 7]
II. Closing the deal
III. Wordsmithing in plenary
IV. Redirecting competition
V. Bridging disparate views
VI. Harvesting partial product
VII. When to be formal
VIII. Harnessing brainstorms
IX. Coping with blocking energy
X. Defining respect
XI. Balancing voices
XII. Knowing when to accelerate and when to brake
XIII. Knowing when to labor and when to let go
XIV. Accountability

• • •

Typically, there are three main challenges to facilitating tough topics. The first is managing non-trivial distress. The second is flushing out all the factors that a good response needs to take into account (plus vetting and prioritizing), and the third is finding the best solution—the subject of this essay.

If the topic is complex, consider aggregating elements of the solution piece by piece, demonstrating to stakeholders how their concerns have been adequately reflected in what’s being proposed. In general, you’re better off checking first with the stakeholders you think might have to stretch the furthest to feel included—on the theory that if you can’t hold them, you probably don’t have a viable solution and you might as well know that from the get-go.

The trick here is steadfastly steering the group away from the advocacy that was featured in identifying factors, and repeating to the group the mantra: "How well does this suggested response balance the factors we came up with?" When a person feels their concerns have been left out of a proposal, ask them what would work better. Invite everyone to be a part of the solution, rather than a naysayer.

You are trying to create an atmosphere of inquiry and collaboration rather than survival of the fittest. Often, the facilitator—who is actively looking for a creative solution—will see a good way to balance disparate factors sooner than others, who will tend to be more oriented toward protecting turf.

Caution: if, as facilitator, you offer up a solution that you think would work well, you have to gracefully stand down in the presence of resistance. It's all well and good to help the group move along; it's not OK to fight for your ideas, as it will tend to undercut the neutrality that is the bedrock of your license to operate.

The key to selling your idea to the group is showing how everyone's core concerns are being addressed. If someone feels left out, they'll be reluctant to get on board and you'll have to try another tack. If everyone can see how all players are being held and at the same time being asked to give a little, proposals will be more palatable.


When are you ready to test for agreement? 
There are two screens to use in making that assessment. First, does the proposal cover all the bases? This is mainly a matter of logical analysis: do the elements of the proposal hang together (are they consistent, both with each other and with existing agreements); are all concerns addressed (completeness); is it practicable (do you have the skill, resources, and motivation to implement)?


Second, is everyone on the bus energetically? Regardless of how comprehensive you believe a proposal to be in addressing the issue, it matters a great deal whether it feels good to the group. The pitfalls here are:
o  A key stakeholder may feel that they've been asked to stretch more than anyone else (why should they have to "pay" more than others?).
o  The suggestion to test for agreement may come sooner than some have had enough time to fully grok its ramifications and how they feel about it.
o  People may feel that the process has been sloppy (perhaps not enough relevant information has been collected; perhaps a pushy member is perceived to have been bulldozing on this topic; perhaps one or more stakeholders have been shrill in the consideration, using emotional blackmail to steer the conclusion).






The symptoms of energetic non-alignment include flat affect, body language that indicates discord (folded arms, frowns, lack of eye contact, squirming), irritation, and sarcasm. Caution: a person may feel uneasy (and display one or more of the above symptoms) much sooner than they can articulate what's bothering them. Thus, a direct inquiry about what's going on—however well intended—may not illuminate the concern.



A skilled facilitator needs to be able to read when the energy in the room is sufficiently aligned to ask if there's agreement. Typically, with smaller decisions you can go faster (no one wants to dawdle, and the consequences of a mistake are less daunting); with larger decisions it's prudent to be more deliberate (sometimes you're facing a fork in the road where the ramifications are large and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to retrace your steps and do differently if you don't like what you get—in those moments its generally a good idea to pause and take a deep breath before committing).

When closing the deal, a crackerjack facilitator is part cheerleader ("We can do this!"), part magician (you're apt to see solutions others miss, especially if you're the only one in the room looking at the glass half full), and part sheep dog (continually urging the group to move in the direction of the corral that will hold everyone, and away from protecting isolated ideas).

While I appreciate that you may have never seen someone facilitate when costumed in a short skirt and knee socks, rigged out with a megaphone, a shepherd's crook, and a tall pointy hat adorned with stars, I've never been one to let odd raiment get in the way of a good meeting.