Consensus decision making aims to (1) achieve full participation and mutual understanding by encouraging all members to share ideas, (2) integrate everybody's perspectives and needs to discover the best possible decision, and (3) ensure everyone agrees to support the decision and is willing to implement it. The consensus process involves surveying issues from different perspectives, searching for alternatives, building understanding, and crafting inclusive solutions that serve the group's interests. When consensus cannot be reached, alternatives include deferring the decision, allowing a subgroup to decide, escalating it up the chain of command, or changing the decision method.

1. Inclusive decisionmaking
Making strong decisions together
Peter Antman – Agila Sverige 2014
Consenus
peter.antman@crisp.se @peterantman

2. 2Peter Antman
What is Consenus?

3. Consensus - a cooperative search for asolution
everyone willsupport
Peter AntmanI 3
”I belive this is the best decision we
can arrive at for the organization at
this time, and I will support its
implementation”

4.  Makesthe group stronger
– by actively fostering full participation and mutual understanding.
 Drives more creative solutions
– by creating an inclusiveenvironment wherewe try to build on eachothers
suggestions and opinions.
 Lead to high commitment.
– Implementing decisions madeby consensus is often fast and painless since
every oneinvolved arealready onboard.
What are the benefits?
Peter Antman 4

5. Peter Antman 5
Alternatives?

6. Person in charge decides
Peter Antman 6
Person in charge decides
after group discussion
Compromise Majority vote
!
!

7. What happens?
Peter Antman 7
Conflict
Losers and
winners
Locked
positions
Not being
listened to
Non loyal

8. Peter Antman 8
?
• Familiar opinions
• Conventional wisdom
• Well known disagreements
• We start with what we know
✔
Business
As usual

9. Peter Antman 9The Consensus process

10. Peter Antman 10
?
Familiar opinions
?
BAD!
NO!
STUPID!
Diverse perspectives
✔
Business
As usual

11. Peter Antman 11
o In the interest of the whole
o Not competition (nowinners)
o Requires a commonpurpose
(that people arecommitted to)
Allmembers are encouraged to speak up and
share ”first-draft” ideas
1. Full participation

12. Peter Antman 12
?
Familiar opinions
?
Competing frames
of reference
Business
As usual
energy
Full
participation
Defer
judgement
• Surveying the territory
• Searching for
alternatives
• Rasing Difficult issues
Diverse perspectives
✔✗ ✔

13. Peter Antman 13
o Trust and openness
o Disagreement as a positive force
o Participants areexpected to
express different points
o Criticize ideas
Understand and accept the legitimacy of one
another’s needs and goals
2. Mututal understanding

14. Peter Antman 14
?
Familiar opinions
?
Groan zone
Competing frames
of reference
Business
As usual
Shared framework
of understanding
energy
frustration
Full
participation
Mutual
understanding
Defer
judgement
Hold out
• Surveying the territory
• Searching for
alternatives
• Rasing Difficult issues
• Strengthening releationships
• Creating shared context
Diverse perspectives
✔

15. Peter Antman 15
o Every voicematters
o Balance difference in power
o Discovery: combine collective
wisdom into best possible
decision
Intergrate everybody’s perspectives
andneeds
3. Inclusive solutions

16. Peter Antman 16
? ✔
Familiar opinions
?
Groan zone
Competing frames
of reference
Business
As usual
Shared framework
of understanding
Inclusive
alternative
Synthesis
energy
frustration
Full
participation
Mutual
understanding
Inclusive
solutions
Defer
judgement
Both/And
Hold out
• Surveying the territory
• Searching for
alternatives
• Rasing Difficult issues
• Strengthening releationships
• Creating shared context
• Exploringinclusive
principles
• Creative reframing
• Strengthening good
ideas
Diverse perspectives

17. Peter Antman 17
o Decisionsin theinterestofthe
group
o Putasidepersonalpreferences
o Lookforanoutcomeeveryonecan
live with
o Everyoneagreetosupportdecission
Everyone must be willing and able to
implement the proposal they
endorse
4. Shared responsibility

18. Peter Antman 18
? ✔
Familiar opinions
?
Groan zone
Competing frames
of reference
Business
As usual
Closure
zone
Shared framework
of understanding
Inclusive
alternative
Synthesis
energy
frustration
comittment
Full
participation
Mutual
understanding
Shared
responsibility
Defer
judgement
Both/And
Hold out
• Surveying the territory
• Searching for
alternatives
• Rasing Difficult issues
• Strengthening releationships
• Creating shared context
• How decisions are made
I’m on
Diverse perspectives
Inclusive
solutions
• Exploringinclusive
principles
• Creative reframing
• Strengthening good
ideas

19. Peter Antman 19
? ✔
I’m on
I have
concerns
I’m principally
against
I’m outside
the circle
SuppportOpen issues
Stand aside
Block

20. Hand signals
Peter Antman 20
Agree: I support this proposal and will commit to it.
Not sure: I could support this proposal but have concerns I need adressed
Block: I do not support this proposal. It does not serve our
(group/organization) best interest
Stand aside: I have a strong objection to the proposal based on my personal
beliefs. I will not assist implementation, but without obstructing it.

21.  Defer the decision
 Give authority to subgroup
 Push decision upwards
 Change decisionmethod
– Ok with for example 1 block
– 90% majority
When group can not reachconsensus
Peter Antman 21
90 %

22. Inclusive decisionmaking
Making strong decisions together
Peter Antman – Agila Sverige 2014
Consenus
peter.antman@crisp.se @peterantman