Group Works Deck

Based on the Consensus Basics training we conducted, here’s a self-assessment tool you can use to see how good of a foundation you have for the functionality of your meetings. As always, note that these principles are really useful for any meeting – not just consensus based meetings.

Let us know if you use this and if it helped.

Group-Self-Assessment

What is consensus?

a)      Decisions that are backed by full group

b)     Creative process for finding solutions that meet everyone’s needs

            Note that consensus refers to people’s “consent” not necessarilly full agreement with a decision. In other words “I can live with it” or “good enough”.

            Also note, you can use a consensus process without using consensus decision making, although in all cases the decision-making process should be clear.

Why use it?

a)      By considering everyone’s viewpoint and needs, can often reach a better solution

b)     Doesn’t alienate people

c)      Decisions are often enacted faster and with greater support

When should you us it?

Here are some key questions to ask when considering using consensus:

a)      Do you have the skills to make consensus work?

b)     What’s the group’s relationship to work after the decision?

c)      How accountable is the group to their decisions? How will the effectiveness of their decisions be measured?

d)     Why were the people in this group selected to be in it?

e)      Do you have a commonly agreed upon goal for your decisions?

f)       Are you open to creative or unorthodox solutions?

g)      Will consensus with this group facilitate positive change or protect the status quo?

4 Essential Ingredients for consensus (borrowed from Laird Schaub)

a)      Explicit, shared values and purpose for group

b)     Work appropriate for the group

c)      Willingness to engage in process (buy-in)

d)     Belief in the process

3 Basic responses to a call for consensus

a)      Agree – usually meaning “I can support this”

b)     Stand Aside – I can’t support this, but I won’t stop it from going forward.

Note: If this happens a lot, then it’s an indication that the group is quite divided and the consensus process may be weak.

c)      Block – This decision cannot move forward

Note: A block must be justified according to the explicit purpose and values of the group, not personal interests. Also, if a person should typically only expect to block a decision a few times in their lives. If it’s happening more than that, then a serious flaw in the process or the person’s understanding of the process must be addressed.

1. People are asked to vote among a variety of options. This voting can be done a variety of ways including paper or online surveys, sticky dots on flipcharts or white boards, etc.
2. People are asked to mark those votes according to some criteria such as the voters willingness to implement that decision. For example, people might mark a regular vote with a blue dot, but use a red dot to indicate that they have a burning passion to work on that item.
3. Tally the results to see what all the votes were for and which items received highly weighted votes. This can be done in a variety of ways:

• any item that got a special vote (e.g. willingness to implement) might automatically be in a category or accepted as an agreed upon action. This may require further discussion however, depending on the nature of the material. Some participants may have specific objections to certain items being acted upon.
• All votes are tallied up but special votes are given a particular weight (e.g. special votes are worth 3 regular votes). If this is the approach used, you must first consider if it’s okay for an individual highly weight all of their votes. In some cases this would be appropriate and useful information, but in other cases this wouldn’t work.

http://detroitfacilitationguild.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/amoeba-discussion/

CONS: doesn’t always worked in tight spaces or places with fixed furniture. Also can cause problems for people with mobility disabilities.

1. Tell people that for this part of the meeting, they should move around at any time to show their opinion. They should feel free to move at any time to show any changes in their opinion in the course of the discussion.
2. Ask someone to state an opinion on the topic at hand.
3. Ask that person to stand in a particular place in the room and ask others to move to stand closer to or farther from that person depending on how much they agree with that opinion.
4. Ask someone who is standing still or standing far away from that last opinion to state their opinion.
5. Define a location in the room for that opinion (possibly where that person is already standing) and remind people to move as they see fit to represent their opinion in relation to these different options.
6. Summarize or ask someone in the group to summarize what pattern emerged.
7. Return to step 4 and repeat all following steps as needed.

This process may just highlight different opinions and stances on a topic and can be a useful tool for gathering information and eliciting new information and opinions. However, it can sometimes lead to decision making. As people see the emerging patterns, they may state an opinion or idea which is a modification on other stances which everyone can agree with. Suddenly instead of having 4 different camps across the room, everyone is clustered into one spot: consensus or clarity has emerged!

If trying to create agreement, then modify step 4 and ask for anyone to try to make a statement that they think everyone could agree with and repeat as needed.

CONS: doesn’t always worked in tight spaces or places with fixed furniture. Also can cause problems for people with mobility disabilities.

1. Pose a question with two different possible answers (e.g. “Do you support this proposal: yes or no:” or “Do you think chances of this succeeding are: hi or low?” or “What’s a higher priority: economic development or environmental protection?”) or state two opinions or positions (e.g. “We should make membership free: strongly agree or strongly disagree.” or “Some people are racist vs. everyone is racist.”)
2. Assign one answer or position to one side of the room, and the other position or answer to the other side.
3. Ask meeting participants to get up and move to stand one one side or the other, or somewhere in the middle to show their opinion.
4. Note or ask participants to note what pattern emerged
5. Tell participants that they should feel free to move in real-time to show if they have any changes in opinion during the discussion – it’s important for participants to realize that their “position” on the line is welcome to change.
6. Ask clarifying questions as needed: for example, for folks standing somewhere in the middle of the line might be asked to explain why they’re standing where they are.
7. Depending on what’s said or what discussion ensues, it might be necessary to remind participants that they can move to show any changes in their opinion.
8. If useful or necessary, ask someone to define an answer or opinion which doesn’t fit on the defined line. Then define a new area on the floor to represent this opinion and ask people to move to show their affinity among these three options. Return to step 4 and continue forward as needed. Note that this step basically turns “standing line” into “amoeba discussion“.

1. Draw a line on the board with “Veto” at one end and “Endorse” at the other with three points on the line in between. The whole lines reads, in this order: Veto — Disagree, won’t block — Mixed —Agree with reservations — Endorse
2. Write the question under consideration above this line.
3. Group decides a metric for what’s the standard for moving ahead (e.g. okay to move ahead with any vetos? Agree to move ahead as long as at least half of group is at agree with reservation, or… whatever). It’s important that this is done before the next step.
4. People then vote for where they are on the gradient. Note this can be done in a variety of ways, including assigning numbers 1-5 for each position and then asking people to hold up the # of fingers for their vote.
5. Results are tallied and compared to metric for moving ahead.
6. Anyone who voted “low” on the scale then stands up and states their objections.
7. When changes or adjustments are possible, then the question is changed and people re-vote.

Variant: This can be done with a “standing line” where people actually stand where they “vote” on a line and then state their reasons.

1. Each workgroup has a specific color marker they use (e.g labor uses blue, enviros use green)
2. Each workgroup gets a long while to create their priorities or brainstorm.
3. Then each workgroup rotates to the next workgroups’ flipchart, taking their colored marker with them. They then add their own priorities for that sector and check their agreement with the existing priorities already recorded. This portion gets less time that each workgroup got in their “native” flipchart. Suggested split: native interest one time, each other interest use half that time. E.g. get 10 minutes at “homebase”, then 5 minutes at each other base and then 5 minutes back at original “homebase”
4. Continued to rotate until each group has had input on each section.
5. A dedicated facilitator stays at each board through the whole process so they can explain previous entries.
6. Can also have people return to their original”homebase” to review other inputs and respond to those.

A great tool for tapping expertise and opinions on specific subject matter in a way that honors most committted stakeholders for each area, while also gathering input from those with interests focused on other areas. Can help tap empathy (e.g. you may be an environmentalist, but ask what interests labor would have in this situation) while quickly educating and building upon a foundation of the viewpoint of those most deeply steeped in that issue.

Current reality – now have groups record existing state of the group
Post on L-hand of wall

Then have group list what activities are needed to bridge those two realities
post and write up this sheet between the other two sheets.

This process helps the group visualize and clarify the actions needed to get a to a particular goal.