Staff 

What is consensus? The meaning of the word "consensus". How is consensus achieved? Pros and cons of the consensus process Discussed in the classification consensus

Great and mighty, as everyone calls it, the Russian language is rich in a variety of expressions. In our language, which already contains about half a million words in its arsenal, borrowing foreign language forms to describe certain things is common. Perhaps this is why Russian is the most beautiful and complex language. The vocabulary of one person does not reach 500 thousand. This is explained not only by elementary ignorance about any words, but also by a lack of understanding of their meaning. You have probably heard a word more than once, but could not understand what it was about - this is exactly such a situation.

For the most part, this applies to those expressions that are borrowed from another language or relate to special subject areas.

It seems that many have heard the word “consensus”. Now let's answer the question of whether we understand its meaning. Most likely no. An unusual expression that catches the ear, but the meaning remains unsolved for one reason only: the word is perceived in context, which means we don’t need to know it to understand the meaning of the statement. This approach is not very good due to its limitations, so it would be useful to understand what consensus is. This will be discussed in this article.

Borrowing words

The word “consensus” itself sounds unusual, not in Russian, which means it suggests that it came from somewhere abroad. In general, why did such a tendency arise - to borrow words? The fact is that progress in Western countries moves at a slightly faster speed than in Russia. The same applies to scientific thought. It is for this reason that new words are “created” there, and then spread throughout the world. Another basis for the theory of borrowing is the fact that many things, for example, the names of dishes, belong exclusively to a certain area, and going beyond its boundaries was accompanied by the appearance of new words in the vocabulary of other peoples.

If you have been abroad, you have probably heard expressions that are consonant with some Russian words even in European languages.

About the word "consensus"

For most Russian people, this expression will seem strange, to say the least. For our perception, there is an unusually large number of hissing sounds, of which there are as many as three in the consensus. Some may find it difficult to pronounce. Like many other words originating from ancient Greece, “consensus” is perceived as a kind of scientific expression that causes hostility. Nevertheless, there is nothing scary about it - for people accustomed to the scientific presentation of their thoughts, it will seem very ordinary.

Meaning

What is consensus? Different dictionaries do not have a single formulation that describes the meaning of this word - everyone gives it in their own way, but in general, the definition may look like this. Consensus - coming to a mutual agreement or making decisions that suit all parties to the conflict. In a real situation, this is what is called a mutual agreement.

In other words, finding a path that would suit everyone means coming to a consensus. The word is actually used quite rarely in everyday life, since it is of an official business nature.

When is it appropriate to use

As mentioned above, the word has a more official connotation, so it is most often used in various reports and reports on negotiations. You can often hear this expression on TV news broadcasts. In everyday life, of course, you can also use the word “consensus,” but it is much more convenient to say “Vasya and Masha agreed” than “Petya and Sasha came to a mutual consensus.” Also, because the expression is unusual and occurs infrequently, the interlocutor may simply not understand you, which can affect the outcome of the conversation.

Semantics of words in phrases

By itself, “consensus” means nothing. What matters is how the word fits together with others. There is such a phrase as “reaching consensus.” Its meaning lies in the fact that the parties were able to regulate their relations in such a way that they found a way out of the current situation. Such phrases occur, in most cases, in news releases, information articles about any social or political events, and can also be heard in reports at various conferences.

Thus, decision making in the form of the word "consensus" is more of an expression for the language used in the areas listed above. For everyday communication it is rare; it is rather the exception rather than the rule.

Synonyms

We have decided what “consensus” is. As it became clear, this expression is used for official communication, so commonly used words are needed in everyday life. From the definition it follows that this is a kind of decision-making that suits both parties. Therefore, the synonym for the word “consensus” is agreement. This expression sounds much clearer and is more often used in everyday life.

You can also write words such as “consent”, “agreement” into synonyms. Knowing what “consensus” is, it is easy to check whether the word is suitable as a substitute. To do this, it is necessary to substitute it in the expression “The parties have reached a consensus.” Thus, when substituting, for example, “agreement,” it will turn out “The parties have reached an agreement.”

As you can understand, the meaning has not changed at all, which means that for the word “consensus” the synonym “agreement” is legitimate. As a counter example, we use the word “consilium”, since it is consonant and can be easily confused. The word "consilium" means meeting. When substituted into our phrase, we get something like “The parties came to a meeting,” which completely distorts the meaning of the original statement. Using the same principle, you can easily check absolutely any synonyms.

Types of Consensus

Like any word, “consensus” can only delineate a certain range of meanings. Among them, for example, is political consensus.

This happens in any political matter, for example, when discussing a bill, different factions had the same views on the issues described in the document, but were able to come to an agreement.

This expression can also mean an agreement between two organizations on a controversial issue. Thus, everything that concerns the settlement of actions either in the state or in the management of a company and competition with competitors can be considered a political consensus. Its achievement is considered extremely important in situations where it is necessary to resolve any conflict.

There is another common type - social consensus. The expression can denote any agreement between different people on issues affecting their interests. You can give this example: half of the residents of an apartment building have personal cars, while the other half do not. The owners insist on building parking spaces, but others oppose them, for example, because there will be no room for walking in the yard. Reaching a consensus in this situation will mean that when parking spaces are built, vehicle owners will hold a cleanup day to improve the territory in order to create an area for walking and recreation. It is easy to come to a consensus - you just need to hold a meeting at which all parties will express their points of view.

Usage errors

Perhaps one of the most serious mistakes is that the meaning of the word “consensus” is confused with the semantics of the expression “compromise”. If the first case means an outcome in which everyone will receive exactly what was originally included in their demands, then a compromise is a way of resolving the conflict in which the parties make small concessions in order to achieve one goal.

Also, as mentioned above, confusion often occurs due to the consonance with the word “consilium”.

Another common mistake is to use the word in the opposite sense, namely the concept of disagreement and divergence. In order to avoid such mistakes, there must be a clear understanding of what consensus is. This word has only one meaning, and it must be remembered.

Conclusion

The Russian language is rightfully considered one of the most beautiful on the planet. It includes not only words and expressions, but also a huge number of different syntactic structures, and the level of borrowing is quite high. Of course, there are many opponents of this way of organizing language, but this process cannot be controlled.

Moreover, a considerable number of words have already become so firmly rooted in our language that we consider them native. Why does it happen that some expressions quickly “rust”, while others take years, and sometimes even centuries, to take their place? The answer is simple: for those words for which many synonyms have already been selected, as for “consensus,” it is quite difficult to win their place. People are reluctant to use unfamiliar expressions. However, they help improve language, and their use would be highly desirable in everyday communication.

In a broad conceptual interpretation, consensus means a state of mass, collective and individual consciousness, when individuals or people divided into groups are focused on the strategy of social partnership. Consensus- this is the principle of collegial decision-making, providing for a positive resolution of the conflict on the basis of an agreed position, compromise, and cooperation. The substantive antipode to the concept of “consensus” in conflictology is the concept "disensualism" - the system of relations between people, the state of the spiritual organization of society, is subject to one of the strategies of behavior in conflict - social confrontation.

Consensus is a decision made for the conflicting parties, in the development of which all participants in the process consciously participate. It should be clearly understood that such an agreement can only be based on a stable agreement in which all parties to the conflict are interested. At the same time, consensus as a method of conflict resolution presupposes the presence of certain conditions:

The subject of the dispute must be extremely complex, and the interests of the parties must diverge to a large extent;

Both sides are ready to begin searching in areas of previously dissimilar interests;

Having time to search for alternatives that can satisfy both parties;

The parties should be interested in a long-term, rather than temporary, solution to the problem.

The use of consensus technology in conflict management aims not only to minimize its consequences, but also to maximize benefits for all those involved in the conflict.

When studying the features of consensus, it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of “consensus” and “compromise” and apply them accordingly, since they are closely related. Compromise- this is a process that unites the efforts of conflicting parties to jointly search for a way out of the state of confrontation, which is based on mutual concessions, not necessarily mutually beneficial. During a compromise, “bargaining” technology is used. A simple form of conflict resolution hides the complexity of the bargaining process itself, and the system of concessions very often does not resolve the conflict, but only allows one to delay the solution of the problem for a longer period. Taking this into account, we can say that this method is not always suitable for resolving conflict situations.

Finding consensus- a method of making a decision that will be approved by all participants in the process. The term "consensus" is commonly used to refer to both the decision-making process and the decision itself. So, the consensus decision is inextricably linked with the process itself. The consensus method is used by many communities: religious (for example, Quakers), anarchist organizations, various non-governmental organizations and even entire nations (Iroquois). In some democratic countries, consensus is the main method of making government decisions.

Given enough practice, consensus can change the foundations of society, since shared decision-making forms the basis for equal joint activity, as well as for collective control over it.

Practice shows that most often the decision-making process by consensus in a separate community consists of certain stages:

1. Issue on the agenda.

2. Presentation and explanation of the problem.

3. Communication of additional information and perspectives.

4. Brainstorming.

5. Reviews, comments, criticism, questions.

6. the group agrees with a certain idea (yes - consensus has been found, no - return to point 4).

7. Brainstorming: how to bring an idea to life.

8. Sentence, synthesizes all ideas.

9. The proposal was supported (yes - consensus found, no - point 7).

10. Answers to clarifying questions.

11. Responses to criticism.

12. Joint amendments.

13. The proposal was supported (yes - consensus found, no - point 7).

15. Are there anyone who abstained?

16. Have they withdrawn their objections? (Yes - consensus was found, no - point 11).

17. Is someone blocking? (No - Did everyone agree? - Consensus).

18. Find out why - Try it first (step 7).

19. Leave the question for next time.

During preparation for making a decision by consensus, the following roles are assigned:

- Clerk- records the decision and the group and brings it to the attention of persons who missed the meeting;

- Timekeeper- informs about the end of the deadline for considering issues and moving on to the next one;

- Observer- observes the mood of the group, notices hostility, anger, sadness, confusion, etc. and reports to the group: “I noticed that some are dissatisfied with the group’s decision”;

- Facilitator- an extremely important person in a group where people do not know each other well or are not familiar with the technique of consensus; his task is to ensure that the decision-making process does not deviate from the scheme and helps in solving certain problems.

In a healthy decision-making process, differences of opinion are usually encouraged through consensus-building and disagreements are resolved early, maximizing the opportunity for every minority view to be taken into account. For example, it is known that in the Vatican there was a function of “warmer of faith”, or “devil’s advocate”, which was performed by a specially appointed priest, in particular, when making a decision on canonization.

Unanimous minus one- all participants, except one, support the decision. Agree cannot block decisions, but he can prolong the debate, be a constant observer of the execution of the decision, and his opinion on the consequences of the decision can be asked later.

Unanimous minus two does not allow two individuals to block decisions, but in this case the contradiction can be resolved more quickly. If the couple agrees, they can submit their alternative idea about why the decision is bad, they are given the opportunity to find common ground and win over a third party to block decisions. If a third party does not join them within the specified time, their argument is considered unconvincing.

Unanimous minus three and similar systems take into account the ability of four or more participants to actively block decisions. Statistical degrees of agreement such as 80%, two-thirds or simply a majority are also considered. These degrees are not consensus.

Rough consensus. In the case of rough consensus, “how much is enough” is not determined. The issue of consensus is decided by the head. In this case, it is more difficult for a small number of dissenters to block decisions, and they are given significant responsibility, which can lead to disagreement about whether this "rough" consensus was determined correctly.

Although ideally, when making a decision by consensus, opinions and comments should be recognized and taken into account as early as possible, in practice, not all wishes are always taken into account. When a call for consensus is made, there are three options for a dissenter:

Notes. Group members who want the proposal to be accepted, but feel it necessary to indicate their views on the group, can select "comments". If the comments are significant, then the proposal may be changed.

Contents. A member of the group may hold out, has serious personal complaints about the proposal, but at the same time wants it to pass. Since his vote is perceived as “against”, such a participant is usually approached with a question about what could be changed in the proposed solution. It also contains participants who are unable to correctly understand the essence of the proposal or participate in it.

Locks. Any participant can block a proposal. Typically, it only takes one person to completely block a proposal. "Block" is seen as a last resort when a participant believes that this decision poses a danger to the team or its members, or goes against its mission. "Block" is a fundamental disagreement. In some consensus decision-making models, a participant who blocks a proposal commits to developing a solution that will satisfy everyone.

The oldest example of a group that makes decisions by consensus is the Iroquois tribe, for which this method is traditional. Although modern history traces the popularization of the consensus method to the rise of the feminist and anti-nuclear movements of the 1970s, the origins of the consensus method can be found much earlier. Consensus decision-making models include:

Quaker model. Being quite effective, simple and time-tested, it gives everyone the opportunity to speak and limits disruptors (for example, those who try to talk for an unlimited time). All group members share opinions and information until there is unanimity. The number of times each participant can take the floor is limited. Disagreements are resolved through discussions. The presenter announces what everyone agrees on and what they don’t, what disagreements exist, and offers a “draft” solution. The decision belongs to the whole group, and it is responsible for it. The key to the Quaker model of consensus is faith in everyone's humanity and ability to make shared decisions.

IETF Approximate Consensus Model

The IETF makes its decision by "approximate consensus". The IETF should deliberately refrain from defining a method for verifying such consensus, as this may lead to attempts to game the system. Instead, the work group strives to create a "sense of unity." Most IETF issues are resolved through online listservs, where all participants have an ongoing opportunity to share their thoughts.

During group decision making by finding consensus, colored cards are often used. Typically, each participant is given a set of three cards: red, yellow and green. Cards can be raised both when leading a discussion and when accepting a consensus to indicate your opinion. The meaning of the cards depends on what stage of the process they are used at. Red card used during a discussion to make comments about the process itself, to indicate a violation of the rules of procedure (avoiding the topic, going beyond the allotted time, etc.). A red card raised while consensus is being reached indicates the participant's opposition to the proposal. Lifting yellow card during a discussion, it means the participant’s desire to make an addition or answer a question asked. During consensus, a yellow card indicates that the participant is being held or has comments. Green map during a discussion, used to be added to the list of speakers. During consensus, a green card indicates agreement. Some groups use a different color system with complementary colors.

The term "consensus" has firmly entered scientific circulation. Many researchers consider it the optimal way to resolve all conflicts - from family to international. Recently, various consensus procedures and mechanisms have been actively discussed and improved. In scientific literature, the word "consensus" is used in at least three senses: legal, political and sociological. Thus, political scientists distinguish between consensus in the “narrow” sense as a way of politically resolving various disputes and conflicts and in the “broad” general political sense, which is called civil consent. The “broad” political understanding of consensus is closely related to the sociological one, from the position of which consensus is the agreement of a significant majority of people in a community on the most important aspects of its social order, expressed in actions. Among lawyers, the term “consensus” is used mainly by specialists in the field of international law, considering it as a method of developing and adopting international legal acts. Summarizing the various views and approaches, two fundamental principles of consensus can be identified:

- Majority support for the decision(better qualified) participants in its adoption;

- No objections to the decision on the part of at least one of the participants.

At the same time, consensus presupposes the absence of only direct objections and fully allows for a neutral position and even individual reservations to the decision, if they do not undermine the very basis of the agreement reached. Consensus is not a majority decision, since it is incompatible with the negative position of at least one of the participants. The proposed understanding of consensus is applicable not only to interstate relations. It is also convenient to use when analyzing internal processes. Moreover, whenever we are talking about consensus as a method of developing and making decisions (political, legislative, judicial), a direct analogy with the international legal interpretation is acceptable.

First of all, consensus as a method of decision making is divided into legal(when consensus methods and procedures are provided for by regulations and cause certain legal consequences) and non-legal(informal ways of resolving conflicts). Legal consensus may be compulsory(if only a consensus decision is acceptable) and optional(if, along with consensus, another procedure for making a decision is allowed).

Among the most common consensus technologies of modern times, we can distinguish various forms of arbitration , namely:

Binding Arbitration, in which the conflicting parties select a group of persons to consider their dispute and make a final decision, there will be binding force. The procedure for considering the issue adds similarities to the judicial process, but the process itself does not have clear rules governing the direct consideration of evidence. If the process has not been grossly flawed, courts may grant enforcement through binding arbitration.

Recommendatory arbitration. The review procedure is similar to the previous option, however, the decision made by a neutral person is advisory in nature for both parties. This type of arbitration involves the participation of such a category of expert as a participant in the process. The participation of the expert is due to the need for the participants in the confrontation to obtain qualified conclusions on the controversial issue.

"Final Offer" Arbitration can be considered as a type of binding arbitration, when each party proposes its own option for resolving a conflict situation for consideration, and the arbitrator, after considering the proposed options, chooses one of them, without the right to make any changes.

Limited arbitrage. Its peculiarity is the preliminary establishment by the conflicting parties of the boundaries of concessions. If the arbitrator's decision goes beyond the previously stated limits, the claims are taken into account according to the preliminary agreements or during a new round of meetings.

Mediation Arbitration- a type of mixed conflict resolution, when a third party is invited to combine the functions of a mediator and an arbitrator. The invited person is obliged to find the optimal form of consent, which does not irritate the conflicting parties and creates favorable circumstances for resolving the conflict.

Arbitration court. Arbitration proceedings may become the subject of an agreement between the parties or the subject of legislative regulation. The parties to the conflict themselves can choose an authorized person, agree on her capabilities and limits of authority. As for the arbitrator's decision, it is binding and final for all parties.

Informal consensus procedures can be different (round tables, negotiations, mediation, etc.), often they precede the adoption of a legally significant decision (not necessarily a consensus one).

So, the technology for achieving consensus is complex. Understanding the significance of this approach is developed only in several disciplinary directions: institutional-sociological, socio-psychological, legal and the theory of international relations. The main general approach to achieving consensus is the position that conflicts must be managed in such a way as not only to minimize losses, but also to maximize the overall benefit for the conflicting parties.

For post-Soviet countries, the problem of achieving civil harmony in conditions of instability of economic and political processes, which resulted in the marginalization of certain social strata and significant polarization of society in terms of material wealth, often leads to public discontent and protests, is of particular importance. The “negative consensus” existing in the expressions of individual politicians according to the formula “you can’t live like this” is ineffective for constructive changes.

In the absence of basic foundations for public consensus, agreement at the level of leading political forces: parties, movements, associations, elites is not excluded. Typically, the reason for “inter-party consensus” is a temporary balance of political forces, the inability of one party to monopolistically satisfy its interests.

The stability of state power, its ability to make decisions and implement them without open and massive use of violence is ensured by the legitimacy of the current political system. Legitimation of power is a procedure for explaining and justifying it in order to achieve its popular recognition, confidence in the legality and fairness of its managerial claims. Being a subjective-emotional attitude of the people towards power, legitimacy forms an internal guarantee of its stability, ensures acceptance, submission, trust and political participation. For legitimation (self-justification in the eyes of citizens), the government appeals to various rational and rational arguments (economic, historical, cultural, ethical, religious, etc.). According to M. Weber, it is customary to distinguish three “pure” ways of legitimizing power:

- Traditional, when the current government is recognized as legitimate because it has “always been” like this. This type of legitimacy, characteristic mainly of the monarchy, is based on habit, custom, affection and the order established from ancient times. Let us remember Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain, whose power cannot be questioned;

- Charismatic, when the leader (leader) is credited with outstanding personal qualities: moral, physical, intellectual superiority, and often even magical abilities. Charisma involves reckless trust and blind submission to the leader, mixed with adoration and fear. This is how the leaders of the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 were perceived, and this is how modern societies remain in China, North Korea, and countries with dictatorial regimes;

- Rational-legal, when submission to leaders is based on recognition of the legitimate ways by which they came to power. Rational-legal subordination is the most labor-intensive and economically expensive way to legitimize power, since it requires detailed and strict compliance with legal norms regulating the organization and activities of government bodies.

However, experience shows that usually the authorities are not satisfied with just one of the named types of legitimacy. In practice, faith in the legitimacy of power arises from a complex interweaving of many factors of an economic, legal, moral, psychological, religious nature, and we are talking only about the dominance of one or another method. The legitimacy of political power can be considered as a kind of social consensus, mainly “procedural” - agreement regarding the structure of the state, the order of formation of government bodies, the implementation of managerial functions, etc. In turn, this system itself and the dominant method of legitimizing it are determined by the basic value consensus achieved in society.

Of course, a modern democratic constitutional state of law presupposes rational-legal legitimacy. The other two types of justification for power can be present only as small “interspersions” that emotionally color abstract legal structures and thereby enhance their attractiveness.

So, consensus is fully compatible only with a democratic regime, and therefore with rational-legal legitimacy. However, both traditional and charismatic governance have a certain degree of popular support.

Consensus principle(Latin consensus - agreement, general opinion) - adoption of a decision or text of an agreement based on the general consent of the participants without a formal vote, if none of its participants opposes it. P.K. is based on taking into account the opinions of each of the parties, determining in their positions what is common that can unite them, therefore its application requires long-term, careful work to clarify, study and agree on the positions of the parties. C. p. assumes the agreement of the parties on all significant positions, unanimous decision-making by all participants in the meeting, conference, etc.

Political science identifies two groups of countries that are characterized by fundamentally different consensus traditions. The first includes Anglo-Saxon countries (Great Britain, the USA, Northern European countries), where a relatively homogeneous civil culture and traditions of non-violent resolution of contradictions through majoritarian governance have been formed, when the official course is determined primarily only by the most influential forces, the majority. In such countries, political justice manifests itself indirectly, mainly in the form of various formal and informal mechanisms for protecting the rights of minorities, rules of parliamentary etiquette that require consensus communication, which ultimately ensures recognition by the minority of the will of the majority and respect of the majority for the position of the minority.

Another group of countries is represented by the so-called heterogeneous, or plural, societies and most of the countries of the world belong to it. The population of these countries is extremely heterogeneous in beliefs, where traditions of reaching consensus are underdeveloped. Therefore, these countries use separate “consensus mechanisms” - “spivsociumni” or consensus management systems, which make it possible to actually involve all social groups in governing the state and establish an effective dialogue between them in the process of exercising power. They are most developed in Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The consensual nature of government here is ensured thanks to the coalition nature of government bodies, the proportional representation of groups and minorities of society in them, the high level of organization and structuring of group interests and the wide autonomy of segments of society. C. p. is used by some countries in parliamentary practice. Thus, in the General Cortes (parliament) of Spain, the regulations provide for the possibility of making decisions through the Parliamentary Committee on the proposal of the chamber, if the opposition does not deny it.

Covenant agreement is one of the basic principles for making decisions or texts of agreements at international conferences, meetings and international organizations on the basis of the general consent of their participants. During the Cold War, the confrontation between nuclear superpowers made voluntarism too dangerous, which contributed to increased political responsibility and an intensified search for mutually acceptable solutions. The current expansion of contacts between states and the phenomenon of globalization naturally increases the potential for conflict in the human world. For this reason, negotiations, thanks to the search for “points of contact” between the subjects of the conflict, make it possible to ensure a high level of coherence and mutual understanding both in domestic and international life, and contribute to the search for the most acceptable solution for all subjects of the negotiation process. Coordination as a way to reach agreements dominates in a number of UN bodies and international conferences held within the UN.

Zaprudsky Yu. G., Simonov V. V. Social and political conflicts. - M., 1996; Kovalenko B.V., Pirogov A.I., Ryzhov A.A. Political conflictology. - M., 2002; Lebedeva M. M. Political conflict resolution: Approaches, solutions, technologies. - M., 1997; Nature, phenomenology and dynamics of conflicts in the modern world. - Chernivtsi, 1993.

G. Zelenko


COMMON GOAL:
all meeting participants must have a common goal and be willing to cooperate with others to achieve it.

INTEREST IN ACHIEVING CONSENSUS:
it takes a lot of responsibility and a lot of patience to make consensus work. Everyone must be willing to leave their position, be open to alternative solutions, and be able to reconsider what they perceive to be their needs.

TRUST AND OPENNESS:
we must trust that everyone shares our interest in making a truly consensual decision. If we are afraid that people will put their wants and needs above all else, then we are more likely to become defensive and do the same.

SUFFICIENT TIME FOR DECISION MAKING AND LEARNING IN THE CONSENSUS PROCESS:
It's better to spend more time making a good decision now than to waste time later reconsidering a bad one.

TRANSPARENT PROCESS:
It is important that everyone has a common understanding of the decision-making process. Active Participation: If we want to make a decision that everyone can agree on, then everyone must play an active role in making that decision.

GOOD FACILITATION:
helps groups work harmoniously, creatively and democratically. It also ensures that the objectives of the meeting are completed, decisions are made and implemented.

SILENCE IS NOT A SIGN OF CONSENT, OR HOW TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS

The world is changing so rapidly that chroniclers of social practices no longer have time to record the social processes taking place in it. Until recently, Western radical left organizations and the export of proactive measures were stigmatized in Russia, but now the principles of proactivity are taught in courses for young leaders of pro-government organizations. Apparently, this should be so, since the technologies for working with people and ideas are not subject to ideology, but the results bring very tangible results.

One such technology is achieving consensus in organizations and communities. This word came to Russia along with the Gorbachev era and the first congresses of people's deputies. Meanwhile, consensus as the achievement of agreement is used precisely in contrast to “democratic” voting, which is usually used when planning tasks and resolving controversial issues. The motivation for the consensus is described in the epigraph of a little-known book published in a small edition by the Radical Theory and Practice publishing house. It goes like this: “Never mistake silence for consent.” This statement has been tested and proven by the activist organization Seeds for Change. Convincing proof is the voluminous book “Handbook on Consensus” with the subtitle “How to build effective work in a group, taking into account the opinion of each participant.”

SELECTED PLACES FROM THE BOOK

Why is consensus technology worth paying close attention to?

All decisions are made with the consent and participation of everyone, ensuring that all opinions, ideas and concerns are taken into account.

Why is consensus better than democracy?

Many of us are raised to believe that the Western version of the voting system is the highest form of democracy. However, in many countries that shout so loudly about the virtues of democracy, many people no longer bother to vote; they feel that it doesn't really make any difference in their lives since most decisions are made by an elite of powerful politicians and businessmen. The use of voting allows even controversial decisions to be made in a minimal amount of time, but this does not mean that such a decision will be prudent or even morally acceptable. After all, most Europeans and North Americans once supported the “right” to keep slaves. Finding a solution that is acceptable to all concerned is a more acceptable model of decision making. The respect and equality on which many of us try to build relationships with partners, family and friends is an integral part of the consensus.

HOW IS CONSENSUS ACHIEVED?

In the first stage of discussion, the discussion unfolds as people bring their vision of the problem to the group for consideration and generate ideas. This provides the foundation needed for a wide-ranging discussion (the centerpiece) that explores all options and helps to understand each other's concerns. This can be a hectic and sometimes challenging stage: people may struggle with many competing or conflicting ideas, but this is the most creative part, so don't despair! Eventually the group will find common ground, weed out some alternatives, and combine all the useful ideas into a final proposal. The third stage shows the end of the discussion, culminating in the synthesis of a solution that combines different ideas, satisfying people's basic needs and key concerns.

SIX STEPS TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS

Step 1: Introduce Discussion Questions

A good presentation will focus the meeting, help ensure that everyone is talking about the same issue, and provide everyone with all the important information they need to make a decision.

At this stage, it is important to clarify all the necessary information for the discussion and agree on the overall goals to be achieved.

At this stage, it is necessary to express your feelings in connection with the problem under discussion and collect all possible ideas. Consensus is a creative process that is successfully achieved by mixing many different ideas. Draw on all the experience, knowledge and wisdom of your group. Make sure everyone is heard.

Step 3: Identify Emerging Suggestions

Now begin to draw up a proposal, starting from the agreement that you have already reached. Think about how to resolve contradictions. Focus on solutions that meet basic needs and take into account the main concerns raised by group members. It may help to use a flipchart or whiteboard to mark the area of ​​agreement and the issues that need to be addressed. People often argue over small things and do not notice that, by and large, they agree with each other. Making this visible to the whole group will help move things forward.

Step 4: Discuss, clarify and expand your proposal

Check to see if people have concerns about the proposal and make adjustments that will make the proposal acceptable to everyone. Talk in circles and conduct opinion polls to gauge support for the proposal and make amendments.

Step 5: Check Consent

At this stage, it is important to outline your proposals on paper or a flipchart. Ask if clarification is needed: does everyone fully understand what has been proposed? Does everyone understand the same?

Within a consensus, there are several ways to express disagreement. The block neutralizes the proposal; objecting or abstaining provides an opportunity to express concerns while still allowing the group to make a decision.

The group may accept the block and come up with a completely different solution or make amendments to overcome objections. The block is a powerful tool and should be used with caution.

Step 6: Put the decision into action

Once you've agreed on what you want to do, you need to plan who does what. Distribute tasks in the group and record everyone's actions.

FACILITATE IT!

Consensus ideologists believe that even in large groups it is possible to reach agreement on any issue. This, of course, has certain difficulties. But if you use the usual framework for the consensus process and special facilitation tools, then everything will work out. The consensus process in large groups can be fun and inspiring! The six stages of the consensus process are the same as those for small groups, but some stages require general participation and others can be accomplished in small groups. Processes designed for large groups include delegation, large plenums, small group divisions, and councils of representatives. Typically, a combination of these processes is used to run a smooth and successful meeting.

WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF FACILITATORS?

Facilitators are controllers and leaders of discussions. Without such a person it is difficult to reach a consensus. Someone must give the group the right direction and monitor the activity of the participants. In difficult cases or large groups, more than one person can be used as facilitator. Facilitators can change and help each other in several roles.

Hand Watcher– one of the assistant facilitators can keep track of whose turn it is to speak and keep track of the limit.

Watcher of moods– a person who is not actively involved in facilitation can pay more attention to the emotional atmosphere of the meeting and ensure that none of the participants is offended.

Timekeeper Pays attention to the agreed time frame of the meeting and keeps the group within it, if necessary stipulating the extension of discussion of certain items on the agenda or the entire meeting as a whole.

Clerk plays a significant role in the meeting: he follows decisions, takes notes or minutes, collects reports, and also pays attention to pending decisions, for example: who is going to do this and when?

Gatekeeper useful in public meetings, or when some people may be late. The gatekeeper meets new or late people and brings them up to date: explains the purpose of the meeting, informs them what was decided on the agenda, how decisions are made, and also provides information about living conditions.

For very large meetings, it is advisable to have a coordinator responsible for the location, equipment, food, drinks and notices.

Of course, using this technology correctly, consensus can be achieved in any community: large and small groups, communities of people with disabilities, and even in virtual communities. To make the process of reaching consensus more fun, easier and faster, it would be good to nurture a culture of interaction. Then people will begin to understand each other perfectly.

The way we make decisions in a group is an important indicator of how we demonstrate our political or ethical beliefs. Society is developing rapidly, and it is quite possible that the days of democratic voting have passed, an era has come when it is important for all of us to agree, taking into account the principles of separation of power, equality and freedom of opinion. To take all this into account, you may have to learn from both the radical left and the conservative right.

REMINDER FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO COME TO AGREEMENT

Consensus requires the active participation of everyone. Here are some tips on how to make this happen. You can print them on a large sheet of paper or distribute them to all participants in the discussion in the form of a reminder.

If you don't understand something, don't be afraid to say so.

Be willing to work toward a solution that is best for everyone, not just you. Be flexible and willing to give up something to reach agreement.

Help create a respectful and trusting environment. No one should be afraid to express their ideas and opinions. Remember that we all have different values, backgrounds and habits, and we are upset by different things.

Be clear about your own position. Be open and honest about what makes you think this way. Express your concerns as early as possible so that they can be used as a basis for any proposals.

Actively listen to what others are trying to convey. Make an effort to understand someone's position and underlying needs, concerns, and emotions. Give everyone a chance to finish and take the time to consider their point of view.

Think before you speak, listen before you argue. Listen to how other group members react and think carefully about those reactions before you try to assert your opinion. Modesty is essential to consensus; sometimes the biggest obstacle to progress is personal attachment to one idea. If the other offer is good, don't make things worse by resisting it just because you like it less! Ask yourself: “Does this idea fit the group, even if I like it less than others?” or “Are all our ideas good enough? Then what difference does it make which one to choose?

Don't be afraid to disagree. Consensus does not mean that everyone thinks the same. Differences of opinion are natural and expected. Disagreement can help a group make better decisions because... a wide range of opinions and sufficient information provide a greater opportunity to find more suitable solutions. Easily achieved consensus may mask the fact that some people do not feel safe or confident enough to express their disagreement.

THE PROCESS OF ACHIEVING CONSENSUS IN LARGE GROUPS

Step 1: Announce and explain the discussion question
Share the necessary information. Identify key questions. This step can be taken either in a large group or in a council of representatives who pass on information to small groups.

Step 2: Work through the issue and explore ideas
Gather initial thoughts and reactions. What are the main points of contention and concerns? Collect ideas for solving the problem - write them down. Have a wide discussion and discuss ideas; discard some ideas, make a list of the remaining ones.
Convey your ideas, concerns and suggestions to other groups.

Step 3: Identify Emerging Suggestions
Is there an idea or set of ideas that combines the best features of the ideas you have discussed? Identify a solution that meets all needs and make a proposal.
Discuss ideas, concerns and suggestions expressed by representatives of other groups

Step 4. Discuss, clarify and expand your proposal
Take into account all the opinions of other groups, as well as the opinions expressed by members of your group. Make sure that all remaining comments are heard and that everyone has the opportunity to add something.

Step 5: Check consent
Check for blocks, abstentions, objectors, and general agreement.

Step 6: Consensus!
Put your decision into action. Decide who will do what, in what time frame and, if necessary, how it should be done.

Consensus(from lat. consensus - agreement) - a method of making decisions on the basis of general agreement in the absence of fundamental objections from interested parties, without holding a formal vote, if none of the participants opposes it. Consensus is also used as a means of ensuring unity of positions. In the broad sense of the word, general agreement with the absence of objections on significant issues.

Consent manifests itself in how we govern ourselves. It means arriving at solutions that are acceptable to everyone, not just the majority. If we have problems, we raise them on the Circle and discuss them. During a discussion, someone usually voices an issue and offers consensus. If no one fundamentally objects, then agreement has been reached (this is called “consent by silence”). Otherwise, a person can block agreement by proposing another solution, and then the discussion continues until consensus is found.

Through this process we try to solve our problems. Consent gives each person a chance to be heard and the knowledge that each voice will weigh equally. The minority has a chance to change the general opinion if their vision is stronger. It is possible that the Spirit gave them a message that exists beyond the perception of the rest of the council. And if people decide to use the veto and go against the majority opinion, they must be fairly confident that it is important. A veto should not be used to put an individual's wishes above the group's decision. If there are different opinions on the issue under discussion, coming to a single solution can be a very long and tedious process, but it is worth it.

Consent works in an atmosphere of trust, where everyone benefits or suffers equally from the decision made. Everyone needs to listen, participate, be informed, be rational, and be part of the process from the beginning.

What does the term "consensus" mean?

The word consensus comes from the Latin words cum - "with" or "together" and sentire - "to think" or "to feel." Thus, etymologically, “consensus” means “to think (feel) together.”

As a method of decision making, consensus strives to be:

  • Inclusive. As many participants in the joint case as possible should participate in making a decision by consensus.
  • General. Consensus requires the active participation of all decision makers;
  • Joint. Participants in an effective consensus decision-making process should try to arrive at the best possible decision for the group and all its members, rather than defending the majority opinion, which often comes at the expense of the minority.
  • Equal. All members of a consensus decision-making group should try, as far as possible, to contribute equally to the process. All participants have the same opportunity to make a proposal, supplement it, veto it or block it.
  • Those striving for a solution. Participants in an effective consensus decision-making process seek an effective solution acceptable to all, use compromise and other methods to avoid or resolve the problem of mutually exclusive points of view within the community.

A healthy consensus decision-making process typically encourages differences of opinion and resolves disagreements early, maximizing the opportunity for every minority view to be taken into account.

Consensus is not unanimity, since complete coincidence of the positions of all participants in the decision-making process is not required. Consensus assumes the absence of only direct objections and fully allows for a neutral position (abstain from voting) and even individual reservations to the decision (of course, if they do not undermine the very basis of the agreement reached). At the same time, consensus is not a decision of the majority, since it is incompatible with negative position of at least one of the participants.

Consensus as an alternative to voting

Proponents of decision-making by consensus identify the following disadvantages of the voting method:

Voting is competitive rather than cooperative, and decision-making is based on a winner/loser dichotomy, with no consideration for the possibility of compromise or a different solution. Moreover, the criterion of the majority is often seen as disempowering and alienating, forcing the minority to submit. Proponents of consensus argue that this “tyranny of the majority” undermines community cohesion, promotes division, and reduces community effectiveness.

Finally, consensus advocates argue that a decision based on majority opinion reduces the ownership of each group member in the decision. Those in the minority feel less obligated to comply with a decision made by the majority, and even those who voted with the majority may feel less responsible for the ultimatum decision. According to consensus advocates, the result of this “reduced ownership” is a lesser willingness to defend and act on a decision. For any community, consensus can be defined as a solution (option) that is most acceptable to everyone. In other words, it is a solution that satisfies as many preferences as possible.

Decision making by consensus

Because the consensus decision-making process is not as formalized as others, the practicalities of using this method vary from group to group. Nevertheless, there is a basic pattern common to all cases.

Consensus decision-making model

After the agenda has been formulated and the general rules for conducting the meeting have been separately agreed upon, each item on the agenda is placed in a queue. As a rule, each decision from the moment the agenda is announced follows the following simple scheme:

  • Discussion of the item. The issue is discussed in order to find out all opinions and obtain information on this topic. During this discussion, the group's underlying sentiments and potential proposals are often revealed.
  • Formulating a proposal. Based on the discussion, a proposal to resolve the issue is made.
  • Call for Consensus. The group gatherer calls for consensus on the proposal. Each group member should clearly indicate their agreement with the proposal (for example, by raising their hand or a colored card) to avoid a situation in which silence or inaction will be interpreted as agreement.
  • Study of attitudes towards the proposal. If consensus is not reached, each person who disagrees with the proposal put forward expresses his attitude towards this proposal, thus starting the next part of the discussion in order to convey his doubts to others or dispel them.
  • Change of offer. The proposal is adjusted, rephrased or supplemented based on the attitude of those making the decision towards it. The group then returns to the call for consensus, and the cycle repeats until a solution that satisfies everyone is found.

Distribution of functions when making decisions by consensus

To increase the efficiency of the decision-making process by consensus, it is convenient to introduce a number of functions. While these functions vary slightly between groups, they are typically those of gatherer, timekeeper, empath, and secretary. Not all groups involve each of these roles, although a gatherer is almost always present. Often these functions are performed by different members on a rotating basis in order to give members the opportunity to gain new experience and skills and to prevent centralization.

Common functions when making a decision by consensus:

  • Collecting(focalizer, English). The function of the assembler is to facilitate the decision-making process by consensus. The convener monitors the transition from issue to issue on the agenda in accordance with the allotted time, the implementation of the principle of joint decision-making, and also, if necessary, offers separate or additional discussions or decision-making techniques (go-arounds, break-out groups, role-playing ).Some groups use two gatherers. Such collaboration is often introduced to avoid centralization and to create a system that allows the gatherer to shift responsibilities if he or she becomes involved in the discussion from a personal perspective.
  • Timekeeper(timekeeper, English). The task of the time keeper is to make sure that the meeting stays on schedule and that the discussion of agenda items fits into a certain time. To do this, a good timekeeper uses a variety of techniques: periodic reminders of time, reminders of time limits, making sure that individual speakers do not take up excessive amounts of time.
  • Empath The empath is responsible for monitoring the “emotional climate” of the meeting, watching the “body language” and other non-verbal cues of the participants. An empath must prevent possible conflicts by defusing the situation and maintaining a calm atmosphere.
  • Secretary The function of the secretary is to record decisions and main points of discussions. Unlike other decision-making methods, celebrating dissenting opinions is critical to achieving consensus.

When consensus cannot be reached

Although, ideally, when a decision is made by consensus, opinions and comments should be recognized and taken into account as early as possible, in practice, all wishes are not always taken into account in the proposal made. When a call for consensus is made, the dissenter has three options:

  • Make comments. Group members who want the motion to pass, but who feel it necessary to make their position known to the group, can select “comment.” If the comment is significant, the proposal may be changed.
  • Abstain. A group member who has serious personal complaints about the proposal but nevertheless wants it to pass may abstain. Although an abstention does not prevent the proposal from being passed, it is often regarded as a "no" vote, and the participant is usually asked what could be changed about the proposed solution. Participants who are unable to correctly understand the essence of the proposal or participate in it also abstain.
  • Block. Any participant can block a proposal. Typically, it only takes one person to completely block a proposal. “Block” is considered as a measure of last resort, when a participant believes that this decision endangers the team or its members, or goes against the mission of the team. "Block" is a fundamental disagreement. In certain models of consensus decision-making, the blocker of a proposal undertakes to develop a solution that will satisfy everyone, together with supporters of the proposal.

Criticism

Criticism of the consensus method notes that, convenient for small groups whose participants are motivated, have experience making decisions by consensus and are largely close to each other, it has a number of disadvantages, including:

  • Maintaining the status quo. The ability of individuals and minorities to block a decision creates an easy environment for anyone who does not want to change the status quo. Thus, a certain situation can persist in a group for a very long time, even after the majority are no longer happy with it.
  • Vulnerability to controversy. The right to block a decision can make a group hostage to a stubborn minority or individual. Moreover, opposing such obstructive behavior may be interpreted as an attack on free speech and may cause the individual dissenter to become even more dogged in his or her position. As a result, a decision made by consensus will satisfy a minority of the group and infringe on the interests of the majority of it.
  • Abelin's Paradox. The consensus method is sensitive to all forms of groupthink, the most dramatic of which is Abeline's Paradox. According to it, a group can make a decision that none of the group members wants. On the other hand, provided that group members are actually willing to discuss and listen to each other's opinions and comments, the possibility of Abelin's Paradox will be minimized.
  • Time costs. Because the consensus method requires discussion and input from everyone, the process can be time consuming. This will be a significant obstacle in situations where a decision must be made quickly or where it is not possible to discuss the views of all group members within a reasonable period of time. In addition, this can become an obstacle for participants who are unable or unwilling to spend the amount of time necessary to make a decision by consensus.

Historical examples of decision making by consensus

The oldest example of a group making decisions by consensus is the Iroquois tribe, for which this method is traditional. Another similar example among the natives is the Bushmen. Although modern history traces the popularization of the consensus method to the rise of the feminist and anti-nuclear movements of the 1970s, the origins of the consensus method can be found much earlier. The most notable historical example of a European community practicing the consensus method is the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, who began using the consensus method back in the 17th century.

Consensus decision-making models

Quaker model

The model used by Quakers is quite effective, simple and time-tested. Being generally accepted, it gives everyone the opportunity to speak and limits disruptors (for example, those who try to talk for an unlimited time).

The following aspects of the Quaker model can be successfully applied to any decision making by consensus:

  • All group members share opinions and information until there is consensus.
  • During the discussion, participants listen to each other and share information.
  • The number of times each participant can take the floor is limited. This ensures that everyone has the opportunity to be heard.
  • Ideas and decisions are the ideas and decisions of the group, not someone else's.
  • Discrepancies are resolved through discussions. The gatherer identifies those areas where everyone agrees and those where there is disagreement for the sake of productive discussion.
  • The gatherer makes the discussion productive by asking if there are other opinions and offering a “draft” solution.
  • The whole group is responsible for the decision, and the decision belongs to the whole group.
  • The gatherer seeks to recognize the presence of someone who disagrees with the decision, but is indifferent and acts based on his own interests.

Central to the Quaker model of consensus is a belief in everyone's humanity and ability to make decisions together. The fact that a participant cannot speak a second time until everyone else has spoken. promotes diversity of ideas. The gatherer is seen as a person serving the interests of the group, and not as “in charge.” Having formulated a proposal for a solution, participants can once again confirm their attitude towards it and are more likely to support this decision if their opinions are taken into account.

Tools

Colored cards

Some groups use a color-coded card system to speed up and simplify the consensus decision-making process. Typically, each participant is given a set of three cards: red, yellow and green. Cards can be raised during the process - both when leading a discussion and during a call for consensus to indicate your opinion. The meaning of the cards depends on what stage of the process they are used at.

  • Red. During a discussion, a red card is used to make comments about the process itself, indicating a violation of the rules of procedure. Avoiding the topic, the speaker going beyond the allotted time and other violations are grounds for raising a red card. Raised during a call for consensus, a red card indicates a participant's opposition to a given proposal (usually the participant or participants who raise a red card automatically commit to working out a solution that satisfies everyone, together with the rest of the group).
  • Yellow. During a discussion, raising a yellow card indicates a participant's desire to make an addition or answer a question asked. During a call for consensus, a yellow card indicates that a participant is abstaining or has comments.
  • Green. During a discussion, a participant can use a green card to be added to the list of speakers. During a call for consensus, a green card indicates agreement. Some groups use a different color system with additional colors, such as orange, to indicate non-blocking comments that are more significant than simply abstaining (raising a yellow card).

Hand signals

Hand signals are used to non-verbally indicate participants' opinions. The meaning of gestures may vary between groups, but there is a basic set of hand signals that include: movements of the fingers of both hands to indicate agreement; raising a fist or crossing both hands with fists - blocking, fundamental disagreement; “T”-shaped hands are an urgent note regarding the procedure or order itself.

The following set of signals is also common:

  • fist - blocking,
  • one finger - a proposal for change,
  • two fingers - discussion of a minor issue,
  • three fingers - an offer to skip the question without further discussion,
  • four fingers - approval of the solution idea,
  • five fingers - the desire to take upon yourself the execution of the decision.