The goal of the process is either agreement from all participants, or agreement from most participants with the relative few who still do not agree being willing not to insist on their objection and stand in the way of a decision. Often, particularly in a smaller group, a vote isn’t needed to establish that that point has been reached. A vote has been taken if other rules, such as of a larger organization, require a vote.
Obviously, this is a model that can be abused if used to browbeat or wear down those holding a minority opinion. Competent leadership of the process is crucial, as is mutual trust among all participating. And the bigger the group, the more difficult it is to make the process work well, in my experience.
Thanks. And, may I ask, did these consensus-based processes result in legally-binding decisions(*)?
(*) As opposed to stuff like what flavour of donuts to put in the coffee room.
My experience with this form of decision-making is mostly in church contexts, not in political contexts, so nothing with force of law, except to the extent that decisions of a church council are binding. I’ve seen it used with things like whether to discontinue a longstanding ministry of the congregation, in which many members of the congregation were invested but that no longer served the purpose it once had. (Flavors of doughnuts are not things church councils, at least in my experience, spend any time on.)
At the first church I pastored, they had an old electronic organ that actually caught fire during a service. Fortunately, some quick thinking men put it out before there was any serious damage to the building. Destroyed the organ, though. So we set out to find another organ, something to replace the old one. At the time the old electronic organs were giving way to digital organs. The organist actually found a very decent organ, well within our price range. But, we had to bring the purchase to a vote. The salesperson set up the instrument and allowed us to use it for a couple of Sundays. No one seemed to have any problem with it, so we called a special meeting of the voters to approve it. At the meeting, there was no objection. The only vote we heard was "aye." No "nays" at the vote. You would think we had a consensus. But right after the meeting, you guessed it, there were a group that complained to high heaven how the vote was rammed through. Actually, the whole process took about a month from the time the old organ caught fire, the gathering of information, and two weeks of using it on loan. The vote was according to the constitutional requirements. And we rammed it through.
So had the complainants been present during the vote, but remained silent for some reason?
Oh yes, they were present. As I said there were no nyes. They immediately started complaining in the parking lot right after the meeting was formally adjourned.
Comments
Oh yes, they were present. As I said there were no nyes. They immediately started complaining in the parking lot right after the meeting was formally adjourned.