Consensus decision-making

Quaker-based consensus

The model used by the Quakers is effective because it puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards consensus. The Quaker model has been well-received when employed in secular settings because it gives everyone a chance to speak while limiting potential disruptors (e.g., people who want unlimited airtime, or who have a particular axe to grind).

The following aspects of the Quaker model can be effectively applied in any consensus decision-making process:

    * Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.

    * Discussion involves active listening and sharing of information.

    * Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.

    * Norms limit repetition and long speeches.

    * Norms include a short silence after every comment so deliberations are truly thoughtful.

    * Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.

    * Differences are resolved by discussion. The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.

    * The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a minute of the decision.

    * The group as a whole is responsible for the decision, and the decision belongs to the group.

    * The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.

    * Dissenters' perspectives are embraced.

Key components of Quaker-based consensus are ...

1) That the guidance of Spirit is available to each participant who honestly seeks the truth,

2) Belief in a common humanity, and,

3) The ability to decide together. The goal is "unity, not unanimity." Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator is understood as serving the group rather than acting as person-in-charge. By articulating the emerging consensus, members can be clear on the decision, and, as their views have been taken into account, will be likely to support it (see External links below for more information and materials related to Quaker-based consensus).

Copyright 2008 - France BtoB from Wikipédia