What’s the best way for members of a group to reach a decision jointly?
Majority rule, or an up-or-down vote, is one commonly used method. But voting can produce unstable outcomes, particularly when those in the minority feel unheard. Rather than rallying behind the final decision, dissenters may withdraw their support—or worse, actively undermine the result.
By comparison, a process known as consensus building tends to produce more stable, durable decisions. When participants help shape the outcome, they are far more likely to support it. You may be able to improve group negotiation and decision making in your organization by adopting consensus-building techniques.
What Is Consensus Building?
In consensus building, group members commit to “seek overwhelming agreement among all relevant stakeholders,” writes Lawrence Susskind in his book Good for You, Great for Me: Finding the Trading Zone and Winning at Win-Win Negotiation.
“The result is a negotiated decision that is as close to unanimous as possible. From an organizational standpoint, consensus-building techniques help groups as a whole win . . . to reach the broadest agreement possible, not just one that is barely acceptable to a majority.”
By giving all parties a meaningful voice, consensus-building techniques tend to produce better long-term results than majority rule. The goal is not unanimity at all costs, but a decision that participants can actively support—even if it is not everyone’s first choice.
Claim your FREE copy: Dealing with Difficult People
Discover how to collaborate, negotiate, and bargain with even the most combative opponents with, Dealing with Difficult People, a FREE report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Useful Consensus-Building Techniques
In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer explain the benefits and best practices of consensus building. They also describe several practical techniques that groups can use to move from disagreement to durable agreement.
In particular, the authors outline three common consensus-building approaches, summarized below.
1. A Conventional Problem-Solving Approach
In this widely used consensus-building approach, participants begin by working together to clarify and agree on a definition of the problem to be solved—often with the help of a neutral facilitator. They then decide how deliberations will be conducted, including ground rules, timelines, and decision criteria.
During the education phase, participants:
- Share information about the context of the problem
- Articulate the interests and concerns that matter most to them
- Contribute relevant technical or expert knowledge
Next, the group generates possible solutions and then “establishes and applies criteria to evaluate the options they have developed,” write the authors.
The following stage is to seek agreement on a package of proposals that everyone can support. Recommendations designed to meet multiple interests are added to the package. If someone objects to a proposal, they are encouraged to suggest changes that would make the overall agreement acceptable to them without making it worse for others.
Finally, successful consensus building does not end with agreement. Parties should stay in close contact during implementation to ensure commitments are honored and the agreement succeeds over time.
2. Working with a Single-Text Document
The single-text approach to consensus building involves “introducing a working draft of an agreement early in a process for parties to discuss and revise,” according to the authors.
That draft may be prepared by:
- A mediator who has interviewed all parties
- A technical expert familiar with both the issues and stakeholder perspectives
- A representative subgroup of stakeholders working collaboratively
“The single-text method provides a clear structure for discussions and a focal point for identifying areas of agreement and disagreement,” write Susskind and his coauthors.
This approach can be particularly effective when negotiations involve:
- Complex technical or regulatory language
- Statutory or policy constraints
- Large numbers of stakeholders
Rather than debating competing drafts, parties work from a shared document—reducing confusion and minimizing positional bargaining.
3. A Visioning Approach
The third consensus-building technique focuses participants’ attention on the future rather than on present-day disputes. A visioning approach typically revolves around three guiding questions:
- What do we have?
Participants assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current situation. - What do we want?
Group members describe an ideal future outcome that reflects their underlying interests. “Parties in conflict frequently find it easier to think about solutions in the future than in the present,” write the authors. Doing so “frees them up to be more creative.” - How do we get there?
Participants propose strategies and steps for implementation, which can be incorporated into the final agreement.
Visioning can be useful in many settings, but it is especially valuable when parties are entrenched in firm positions. In such cases, Susskind, McKearnan, and Thomas-Larmer note that “thinking about the future can produce more common ground than discussions that remain focused on the present.”
What other consensus-building techniques or approaches have you found useful in group negotiation and decision making? We’d love to hear from you.
Claim your FREE copy: Dealing with Difficult People
Discover how to collaborate, negotiate, and bargain with even the most combative opponents with, Dealing with Difficult People, a FREE report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
