Making decisions, even if they are not very important, can be intimidating. Recognizing that you`ve made a decision that`s wrong, or even a decision that`s not the best, isn`t a great feeling. To avoid this, many people seek someone else`s opinion and seek consensus before making a decision. Japanese companies usually use a consensus decision, which means that for each decision, the board of directors seeks unanimous support. [65] A ringi-sho is a circulating document used to reach an agreement. It must first be signed by the manager at the lowest level, then upwards and may need to be reviewed and the process started again. [66] Unanimity is achieved when the entire group appears to accept a decision. It has drawbacks in that other disagreements, improvements or better ideas remain hidden, but the debate is effectively closed and postponed to an implementation phase. Some consider unanimity to be a form of groupthink, and some experts suggest “coding systems.” zur Erkennung der Illusion des Einstimmigkeitsymptoms”. [42] In Consensus is not a unanimous, Starhawk wrote: To ensure that the approval or approval of all participants is valued, many groups choose unanimity or near-unanimity as the decision-making rule. Groups that require unanimity give individual participants the option to block a group decision.
This provision motivates a group to ensure that all members of the group accept each new proposal before it is adopted. However, proper guidelines for the use of this option are important. The ethics of consensus decision-making encourage participants to place the well-being of the entire group above their own individual preferences. If there is a risk of blocking a group decision, the group and the dissidents in the group are encouraged to work together until an agreement can be reached. The simple veto against a decision is not considered a responsible use of consensual locks. Here are some common guidelines for using consensual locks:[2][7] Some proponents of consensus decision-making who use majority rules are not desirable for a variety of reasons. Majority decisions are seen as competitive rather than cooperative, shaping decision-making in a win/lose dichotomy that ignores the possibility of compromise or other mutually beneficial solutions. [43] Carlos Santiago Nino, on the other hand, argued that majority rule leads to better counseling practice than alternatives, as it requires each member of the group to make arguments that please at least half of the participants. [44] A.
Lijphart comes to the same conclusion about majority rule, noting that majority government favours coalition formation. [45] Moreover, opponents of majority rule argue that it can lead to a “tyranny of the majority,” a scenario in which a majority places its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group that it constitutes active oppression. However, some electoral theorists argue that majority rule can actually prevent the tyranny of the majority, in part because it maximizes a minority`s potential to form a coalition that can overturn an unsatisfactory decision. [45] Many people think that consensus is simply an expanded voting method where everyone has to vote in the same way. Since such unanimity rarely occurs in groups with more than one member, groups trying to use this type of procedure are usually extremely frustrated or compulsive. Either decisions are never made (which leads to the disappearance of the group, its transformation into a social group that does not perform tasks), they are made secretly, or one group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority dominates, sometimes a minority, sometimes an individual who uses “the bloc”. But no matter how it is done, it is NOT a consensus.
[40] The opinion before the committee agrees that there is a lack of spiritual values in the community. Consensus decision-making is an alternative to the usual group decision-making processes. [4] Robert`s Rules of Procedure, for example, are a guide used by many organizations. This book makes it possible to structure the debate and to adopt proposals by majority. It does not emphasize the goal of a comprehensive agreement. Critics of such a process believe that it may involve adversarial debate and the formation of competing factions. This dynamic can damage relations between group members and impair a group`s ability to implement a contested decision in cooperation. Consensual decisions attempt to address the beliefs of these problems. Proponents argue that the results of the consensus process include:[2][5] All attempts to reach consensus begin with a good faith attempt to reach a full agreement, regardless of the threshold of the decision rule. Consensus is a general consensus and occurs when most or all of a group of people believe the same thing about something.
If you are looking for a consensus to make the best decision, look for a decision that a majority agrees with and use the majority`s opinion as a guide for your own decision. In his book on Wikipedia, Joseph Reagle examines 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. It was the consensus of opinion that the only thing stopping him from swimming was his curls. Quaker-based consensus[19] is considered effective because it introduces a simple and proven structure that pushes a group towards unity. The Quaker model is designed to allow individual voices to be heard while providing a mechanism for dealing with disagreements. [5] [20] [21] 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. One tradition to support approximate consensus is the tradition of buzzing and not (countable) hand lifting; This allows a group to quickly recognize the prevalence of dissent without it being easy to slip into majority rule. [68] If you rely on other people for your opinion and use consensus even if your own thoughts would otherwise be valid, you can: The main Negro danger lies in an evil consensus of opinion about it. If you feel like you can`t stop relying on other people`s opinions to make decisions, or if you feel stuck when asked what you think of something, talking to a therapist can help. Therapy sessions can provide a safe and constructive space where you can practice useful thought processes and problem-solving skills so that you can rely on your choices and ability to face challenges yourself.
Consensus is not synonymous with “unanimity” – although this can be an agreed rule in a decision-making process. The degree of agreement required to make a decision is called the “decision rule.” [2] [6] The expression consensus of opinion, which is in fact not redundant (see meaning 1a; the meaning that adopts the sentence is slightly older), has been so often referred to as redundancy that many authors avoid it. You`re sure to use consensus alone when it`s clear that you mean consensus of opinion, and most authors actually do. Consensus decision-making or consensus policy (often abbreviated to consensus) refers to group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim or requirement of acceptance by all. The emphasis on avoiding negative opinions distinguishes consensus from unanimity, which requires all participants to positively support a decision. Consensus comes from Latin and means “agreement, agreement”, which in turn comes from consent, which means “to feel together”. [1] The process and outcome of the consensus decision is called consensus (p.B. “by consensus” or “consensus”). 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.
Another method of promoting the deal is to use a voting process where all members of the group have a strategic incentive to accept rather than block. [34] However, it is very difficult to see the difference between those who support the decision and those who only tolerate it tactically for incitement. Once they have received this incentive, they can undermine or reject the implementation of the agreement in various non-obvious ways. In general, electoral systems avoid offering incentives (or “bribes”) to change a sincere vote. Outside of Western culture, several other cultures have made consensual decisions. One early example is the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) of the Confederacy, which used a super-majority of 75% to supplement its decisions,[52] perhaps as early as 1142. [53] In the Xulu and Xhosa trials (South Africa), community leaders come together to listen to the public and negotiate pictorial thresholds for an acceptable compromise. .
