What determines the specific degree of agreement required for consensus to be explained? A particularly important decision would clearly require almost all people to vote #1 or #2. For example, in a decision that requires broad stakeholder support to succeed, no more than one person (#4) can disagree with the proposed decision and no one can provide a veto position (#5). General agreement between members of a particular group or community, each of whom exercises some discretion in decision-making and monitoring. Some proponents of consensus would argue that a majority vote reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision. Members of a minority position may feel less attached to a majority vote, and even majority voters who have taken their positions along party or bloc lines may have a reduced sense of responsibility for the final decision. The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus advocates, may be a lesser willingness to defend or respond to the decision. Outside of Western culture, several other cultures have made consensual decisions. An early example is the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) of the Confederacy, which used a super-majority of 75% to finalize its decisions,[52] perhaps as early as 1142. [53] In the Xulu and Xhosa (South African) processes, community leaders come together to listen to the public and negotiate figurative thresholds for an acceptable compromise. The technology was also used at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2015.

[54] [55] In the Cultures of Aceh and Nias (Indonesian), family and regional conflicts, from playground struggles to legacies, are addressed through a Musyawarah consensus-building process in which the parties mediate to find peace and avoid future hostility and revenge. The resulting agreements must be followed and range from advice and warnings to compensation and exile. [56] [57] In his book on Wikipedia, Joseph Reagle explores the merits and challenges of consensus in open and online communities. [38] Randy Schutt,[39] Starhawk,[40] and other direct action practitioners focus on the dangers of an apparent agreement, followed by actions in which group divisions become dangerously apparent. In other words, the confusion between unanimity and consensus usually leads to the failure of consensual decisions, and the group then returns to majority or super-majority rule or dissolves. All attempts to reach consensus begin with a good faith attempt to obtain full consent, regardless of the threshold of the decision rule. Consensus decision-making allows a group to make decisions through conscious discussion in which: The basic model for reaching consensus as defined in a decision rule includes: Since consensus decision-making focuses on discussion and solicits feedback from all stakeholders, it can take a long time. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions need to be made quickly or where it is not possible to obtain the opinion of all delegates within a reasonable period of time. In addition, the time required to participate in the decision-making process by consensus can sometimes be a barrier to the participation of those who are unable or unwilling to make the commitment. [50] However, once a decision has been made, it can be reacted to more quickly than to a decision made.

The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia refers in particular to Acts 15[62] as an example of consensus in the New Testament. The absence of a legitimate consensus process in the unanimous condemnation of Jesus by corrupt priests[63] in an illegally held Sanhedrin court (which had rules that prevented unanimous condemnation in a hasty trial) greatly influenced the views of pacifist Protestants, including Anabaptists (Mennonites/Amish), Quakers, and Shakers. In particular, it has influenced their distrust of expert-run courtrooms and being clear about the process and coming together in such a way that “everyone needs to be heard.” [64] Allen, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock – Steven G. Rogelberg (eds.): The Cambridge Handbook OF Meeting Science. ==External links==556–584. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107589735.024 Although everyone on Wikipedia has the right to be heard, this does not mean that discussions remain open indefinitely until we hear about it. Nor does it mean that a consensus should be overturned by an appeal to “Wikipedians there” who disagree. It is not possible to determine whether this is the case or not. So if you think the current discussion isn`t really an opinion, you should either prove it by referring to an existing discussion or suggest starting a new discussion with a wider audience. Third, use the phrase “disagree and commit.” This sentence saves a lot of time. If you have a direction, even if there is no consensus, it is helpful to say, “Look, I know we disagree on this issue, but are you going to play with me? Disagreement and confession? Until then, no one can know for sure the answer, and you`ll probably get a quick yes.

The consensus decision-making process often has several roles to make the process more efficient. To reach consensus, a group must first determine the degree of agreement required by that decision. Some decisions require a high level of agreement, while others require a relatively low level of agreement. The Michigan State University extension recommends that your group discuss and decide on the minimum level of consent required before proceeding with the consensus decision tool. “Agreement between experimental observations and theory” Although the rules of procedure of the General Assembly (A/520/Rev.18) do not mention decision-making by consensus, “the long-established practice of the General Assembly and its main committees is to seek consensus to the extent possible” (Oppenheim`s International Law United Nations). The conclusions of the Special Committee on the Rationalization of Procedures and the Organization of the General Assembly, annexed to the rules of procedure, stipulate that “the adoption of decisions and resolutions by consensus is desirable if it contributes to the effective and lasting settlement of disputes and thus strengthens the authority of the United Nations” (A/520/Rev.18). In 2001, Robert Rocco Cottone published a consensus model of professional decision-making for counsellors and psychologists. [69] Based on social constructivist philosophy, the model functions as a consensus-seeking model, as the clinician addresses ethical conflicts through a negotiation process for consensus. Disputes are resolved by mutually agreed arbitrators who are selected at the beginning of the negotiation process. Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees on the same level. The goal of consensus is to reach a mutually acceptable level of agreement that is necessary to move forward.

This article explained what consensus means. Another article will follow, which explains in more detail how the practice of consensus decision-making with groups can be applied. “There was an agreement between management and workers” High-stakes decisions, such as court decisions of courts of appeal, still require such explicit documentation. However, there is still a consensus that opposes fractional statements. Nearly 40% of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, for example, are unanimous, although often for very different reasons. “The consensus in the Supreme Court vote, especially the extreme consensus of unanimity, has often confused judicial observers who adhere to ideological reports on judicial decision-making. [47] Historical evidence as to whether the opinions of some judges have been suppressed in favor of public unity varies. [48] Some proponents of consensus decision consider majority rule procedures to be undesirable for several reasons […].