Different Paths to Consensus

Different Paths to Consensus

Beyond the general process outlined above, there are several different methods, which have been developed to help a group to reach a consensus. We will look at a few in this section and you can find links to more in-depth instruction in Section 7.

A. Deep Democracy – The Lewis Method

“The Lewis Method of Deep Democracy is a practical five-step approach for working with groups and individuals. It is “democratic” because it emphasizes that every voice matters and that decisions are wisest when majority and minority voices are both valued. It is “deep” because it extends communication between people beyond a rational discussion of ideas to work also with emotions, intuitions, attachments and patterns, supporting self-development and engagement processes that build community and connection.” Source: (https://deep-democracy.net/new-home/)

Myrna and Greg Lewis developed their method of Deep Democracy based on the Process Oriented Psychology work of American physicist and Jungian analyst Arnold Mindell. It was developed in response to organizations in post-apartheid South Africa who wished to resolve racial tensions and conflicts and increase collaboration at work.

This approach values diversity and encourages leaning into tensions and conflicts, in order to seek out the innovative solutions, wisdom, and growth potential that can be uncovered. There is a belief that differences of opinion offer fertile ground for creative thinking in the collective. In Deep Democracy, the wisdom of the minority voice is valued and included in the majority decision and the final outcome brings everyone along with it.

The five steps of inclusive decision-making that Deep Democracy proposes are:

  1. Everyone has a say: Collect all viewpoints, ask for proposals and list them carefully.
  2. Create a safe environment and actively look for alternatives. Find the “no.” Make sure you have collected all proposals, even the most outlandish ideas
  3. Investigate the alternatives: Who’s recognizing at least some elements of minority ideas? Who disagrees or has an alternative proposal? Take a vote to get a sense of majority-minority thinking.
  4. Include the wisdom of the minority: Add the minority perspective to the majority viewpoint. Ask the minority: what would it take for you to go along with the majority? Vote again and make a decision.
  5. When decision-making breaks down and you have not reached a decision after the five steps: go fishing!

Source: www.compassiontolead.net

Going fishing means to explore “below the waterline” to find underlying issues that may be preventing the group from coming to agreement. Is there some emotional or organizational challenge that is not being spoken about but is affecting the way people see the issue or each other?

B. Harvard Program on Negotiation

 “The Program on Negotiation (PON) is a university consortium dedicated to developing the theory and practice of negotiation and dispute resolution.” Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_on_Negotiation

Negotiation experts and authors Roger Fisher and William Ury founded the Harvard Negotiation Project in 1979 with co-founder Bruce Patton. Their intention was to improve the teaching, practice and theory of negotiation and inspire more constructive approaches to resolving disputes from the interpersonal to international realms.

The PON method caters to two different approaches to negotiation: win-lose where one person or side wins the negotiation, or win-win where the question is ‘how can we build the most value together?” For our purposes, the latter is more relevant.

The PON states that there are seven elements to any negotiation that should be considered. These can help you to better understand the dynamics of negotiation and to prepare well. They are:

  1. Relationship – being mindful of the relationship you have and the relationship you want with other parties involved.
  2. Communication – listening actively, adopting relaxed body language and asking open-ended questions.
  3. Interests – understanding why others hold the positions they do and want the things they want.
  4. Options – get clear on the possible agreements or combinations of agreements that can come out of the discussion.
  5. Alternatives – what other solutions might come out of the discussion and how do these measure up to your interests and those of others?
  6. Legitimacy – finding some independent and objective standard against which to measure the options and alternatives to be sure everyone is getting a fair deal.
  7. Commitment – what kind of commitment is required as an outcome of the negotiation?

Source: https://hms.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/assets/Sites/Ombuds/files/HMS.HHSD_.HSPH_.OmbudsOffice.SEVEN%20ELEMENTS%20OF%20EFFECTIVE%20NEGOTIATIONS.pdf

C. The Circle Way

Humans have gathered in circles throughout our history. The fire used to provide a natural point around which to gather, looking each other in the eye and listening to each other’s stories. Authors and teachers Christina Baldwin and Ann Linnea observed that rearranging a meeting space to seat people in a circle had a powerful effect on the learning, creativity and decision-making that took place. Over two decades they have studied the power of circle as a social form, seeking ways to reintroduce it to mainstream settings. Their book ‘The Circle Way: A Leader in Every Chair’ is the culmination of this work.

“Several actions set the circle process in motion. The group gathers with a welcome, followed by a round of checking-in so that every voice can be heard. People articulate and respect agreements that define the role of individuals and how they will treat each other. Topic and intention guide the conversation. To elicit story and wisdom, practices of listening and speaking are observed. There is a way to pause the action and call for reflection. Decisions made, whether by consensus or hierarchical design are enhanced by hearing all points of view beforehand, and cooperation is facilitated by participation. Before people leave, there is a round of checking-out and a brief farewell.” – Source: The Circle Way, By Christina Baldwin

The Components of The Circle Way: 

  1. Intention – determining who will come, what the intended outcome or discussion point is, framing the invitation to participants in the circle.
  2. Welcome / Start-point – a gesture from the host to invite centering and focus as the circle session begins.
  3. Center and Check-in/Greeting – placing items in the center which connect with the intention of the circle or are meaningful to participants, checking in one by one around the circle and sharing a few words to weave the field.
  4. Agreements – setting agreements as a group about respect, confidentiality etc. that allow all participants to freely and safely express themselves during the circle.
  5. Three Principles:

The circle is an all-leader group.

  1. Leadership rotates among all circle members.
  2. Responsibility is shared for the quality of experience.
  3. Reliance is on wholeness, rather than on any personal agenda.
  4. Three Practices:
  5. To speak with intention: noting what has relevance to the conversation in the moment.
  6. To listen with attention: respectful of the learning process for all members of the group.
  7. To tend the well being of the circle: remaining aware of the impact of our contributions.
  8. Guardian of process – one member of the group volunteers to observe and safeguard the energy and intention of the group, by occasionally calling a pause using a chime or similar sound when they feel like it would benefit the group process.
  9. Check-out and Farewell – each individual in turn shares a few words of reflection on their experience and the host may say a few words of farewell to signal a release of the circle.

Source: http://www.peerspirit.net

D. Case Study: Indaba at the United Nations

 In 2015, 195 countries gathered in Paris to attempt reaching a consensus on the way forward for mitigating climate change globally. Needless to say, they struggled. As the time began to run out, they tried something new in a desperate attempt to reach consensus in the final hours of the summit.

 “Indaba” is a negotiation tactic used by the Zulu and Xhosa people of Southern Africa to simplify discussions between many parties. It was first used in climate negotiations at Durban in 2011. Each party is asked to speak personally, to state their hard limits or ‘red lines’ and to provide solutions for finding common ground. This allows every voice to be heard, but within a structure, so that consensus can be reached quickly.

It is reported that including everyone and allowing ordinarily hostile parties to speak and hear each other in the presence of observers was incredibly effective.

So whatever challenge you are facing, you can feel encouraged about what is possible!

Source: https://qz.com/572623/this-simple-negotiation-tactic-brought-195-countries-to-consensus-in-the-paris-climate-talks/

E. Exercise

 Think about an important decision that you need to make with a group. Reflect on the different processes above and decide which of the methods would be most useful to use. Jot down an outline of how you would approach building consensus around this issue.


CONTACT US

x