Consensus decision-making - Wikiowl Wikipedia Republished
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. It has its origin in the Latin word consensus (agreement), which is from consentio meaning literally feel together. It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision.
SNCC, during its best days, made important decisions … by consensus, that is, with the support of everyone in the room. I have heard Northern radicals mock such consensus decisionmaking as petty bourgeois, and inappropriate for serious revolutionaries. But the reason SNCC made decisions by consensus was precisely because their work was so much more dangerous than anything being done in the North: in such a setting, no one felt comfortable making a decision by majority rule that might cost somebody else’s life.
Staughton Lynd, in Staughton Lynd and Andrej Grubacic, Wobblies and Zapatistas: Conversations on Marxism, Anarchism and Radical History (PM, 2008), p. 113.
Autonomy is the antithesis of bureaucracy. There is nothing more efficient than people acting on their own initiative as they see fit, and nothing more inefficient than attempting to dictate everyone’s actions from above—that is, unless your fundamental goal is control other people. Top-down coordination is only necessary when people must be made to do something they would never do of their own accord; likewise, obligatory uniformity, however horizontally it is imposed, can only empower a group by disempowering the individuals who compromise it. Consensus can be as repressive as democracy unless the participants retain their autonomy.
Autonomous individuals can cooperate without agreeing on a shared agenda, so long as everyone benefits from everyone else’s participation. Groups that cooperate thus can contain conflicts and contradictions, just as each of us does individually, and still empower the participants. Let’s leave marching under a single flag to the military.
Consensus decision-making's little-known religious origins shed light on why this activist practice has persisted so long despite being unwieldy, off-putting, and ineffective. L.A. Kauffman traces ...
Interesting piece by L.A. Kauffman on the religious history of consensus, and the dogma you get around it as a tool for organising.
On the one hand, this article riles me a bit. The author's seems to be playing on expected anti-religious sentiment in the audience, given the article’s ~laying bare~ of the religious history of consensus as if it's a massive scandal or shocker.
Even more of a stretch is the implication that people rigidly adhere to consensus because of its religious origins. It’s a bizarre claim, and one I just can’t swallow – activists and organisers dogmatically swallow loads of crap in their organising. You don’t need religion to create dogma. I can’t see why consensus is special here. People pour pretty hefty movement resources into media stunts to “change the minds of the public”, or organise march after march after march with little thought to their value. Just as people dogmatically attack consensus in the same way as they do anarchism (the classic “it just doesn’t work does it” argument).
I think there’s more slightly more on board with how the insularity and lack of real diversity in white-dominated groups creates an exclusionary and oppressive way of talking, acting and socialising – and how another common symptom of this mentality is the groundless adoption of consensus whether it works for the group or not.
What consensus is good for
The flaws of consensus are pretty widely recognised, at least in the circles I move in. The fact that it works best in small close-knit groups. The ease with which infiltrators can use it to ruin plans. How in large groups it can tend towards inertia, especially if there's not broad agreement on group values.
Consensus is a tactic, and just as any other tactic it has pros and cons. Where I broadly agree with L.A. is that people rarely actively consider whether consensus is appropriate for their group. It’s often thoughtlessly adopted because it’s seen as “better” or “more democratic” than alternatives.
I’d also throw an even bigger flaw, which is how what people often call “consensus” is a stripped-bare mess where the only real process is hand signals. Or how people think adopting consensus solves problems of informal hierarchies or mistrust in the group, when in practice it normally either papers over them (if consensus is done lazily/badly) or exacerbates them (if people follow a stricter process).
The strongest part of consensus, as the NYC-GA quote in the piece actually sums up pretty well, is the collaborative discussion process, rather than the decision-making process everyone always focuses on. There are so many mixed models that incorporate parts of consensus and parts of other methods e.g. majority vote. Google “consensus-oriented decision-making“ to see loads of examples.
tl;dr
Don’t adopt consensus because you think it’s “better than voting”. Consider what works well for your group, and if it’s experiencing problems, consider changing to a different decision-making model!
Majority Versus Consensus – Which Works Better And Why
If you are tasked with leading or commanding a team, and a group decision is called for under the circumstances (i.e., strategic planning meetings, special meetings of the board of directors, advisory sessions with you “kitchen cabinet” of advisors and experts), you must reach a decision through a discussion followed by a vote.
It Is Too Late To Choose APC Presidential Candidate By Consensus – Atiku
It Is Too Late To Choose APC Presidential Candidate By Consensus – Atiku
Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, one of the aspirants vying for the APC Presidential Ticket, has ruled out the possibility of determining the party’s presidential flag bearer by consensus.
He told newsmen in Bauchi on Sunday that it was ‘too late’ to select a candidate among the aspirants, by consensus.
“It is too late for the party to think of holding a consensus forum for its presidential aspirants but…
