Hi,
I was asked frequenty for a kind of white paper concerning the systemic consensing principle. Here is a first draft. Feel free to ask and add your comments.
Cheers,
Karl
The Systemic Consensus Principle - Basics
Basic Idea
The
basic idea of the systemic consensus principle is to approach as close as
possible to the consensus by measuring the level of resistance of each group
member for each proposal. The decision will be the proposal with the least
total resistance, the so called group
resistance.
Normally
a scale from 0 to 10 is used:
·
0
means absolute no resistance, i.e. complete agreement with the solution or
proposal
·
10
means maximum resistance, i.e. total objection.
·
The
values between are set according to the subjective feeling. This is acceptable
because the conflict itself is based very much on subjective perceptions and
emotions.
Of course
other scales can be used, e.g. 0, 1, and 2: this has the advantage, that voting
can be done by raising hands.
Zero Option
To the
existing proposals the so called zero
option it added. The zero option is context specific. Normally it is
formulated like
·
Let
everything as it is
·
Do
nothing
·
Decide
the next time
·
…
The
zero option can be considered as „limit of reasonability“. No proposal has a
chance of being accepted by the group, if it is lower ranked than the zero
option.
A
simple example shows how it works:
Four
friends want to spend an evening together. Each of them has different
proposals, see below. Of course they notice that deciding by the classical
majority principle leads to a deadlock situation.
·
Bob
suggested the dance event, thus his level of opposition is zero. He doesn’t
like theater – in particular since he speaks no Spanish – but considers jazz as
a pretty good alternative. Also he wants the group to stay together unless
theater is will be chosen.
·
Sue
really wants to go to the theater. She wants to come to the top with her
proposal by setting the values for the other quite high. However – jazz is her
second favorite. If somebody else of the
groups accompanies her to the theater she wouldn’t be opposed to splitting up.
·
Tom
wants to go to the opera. Since he is really good friend with the others he and
doesn’t want to get on anyone's bad side. He so rates the other events with the
same low level of resistance. If his event isn’t chosen, his voting scheme
leaves the final decision up to the others. He wants very much the group to stay
together, so he gives 10 points the zero option.
·
Jane
suggested the jazz event. She neither likes opera nor theater. If these were chosen she wouldn't mind the
group to split up.
·
The
zero option for the four friends is here to split up and not spent the evening
together.
By
calculating the resistance values we see the jazz event has the least level of
resistance by all friends. The average resistance simply is the group
resistance divided by the number of the participants. It is revealed that
behind the deadlock situation the acceptance for the proposals was very
different. The zero option has the highest value - which means that the group
wants to stay together.
This
result even convinced Sue that it makes sense to choose the event, to which
they all have the least resistance. Anyway jazz is her second favorite and only
she knows that the high values she had given do not represent her real
resistance but are due to her strategy to make her proposal win.
Experience
has shown that this argumentation is very convincing.
Jane
is very happy that her proposal has won. But this is not the triumph of a
victor who has beaten the others. The resistance values give us also insight in
the participants’ minds, which you usually don’t achieve through normal
discussions. In cases of strong conflicts it may be necessary not to reveal
this rating information.
The
example shows also a noteworthy advantage for the decision making process: it
can’t be blocked, even not when the democratic majority principle fails.
Why we measure Resistance?
It
is not only because by determining the group resistance we have kind of an
objective criterion our decision. Together with the zero option this is a
powerful tool to convince people – in private in business, in politics – even
children or elderly.
By
measuring the group resistance there is an objective decision criterion even if
the majority decisions fail. And this criterion can be communicated very well
to the participants.
Pro
votes are adjusted to achieve some goals or fulfill some wishes. This leads to
some unpleasant phenomena, like group egoism, exercise of power, vote catching,
ruthlessness, winner and loser. Thus they lead away from sustainable and
thoughtful solutions and an optimal balance of interests.
Although
the information you get by counting
Contra-votes is „mathematically“ the same as for Pro-votes, the
consideration of resistances makes a group more adjusted towards solving
conflicts and consensus. It‘s a bit like considering a glass half-full or
half-empty. Sometimes we know very precisely what we don’t want while what we
want might still be somewhat nebulous. This may be illustrated by the following
story. The pope asked Michelangelo: “Tell me the secret of your genius. How did
you create the statue of David, the masterpiece of all masterpieces?”
Michelangelo’s answer was: “Very simple, I just removed everything which is not
David”. We don’t know exactly what makes us successful. We don’t know exactly
what makes us happy. But we know very precisely what destroys success or makes
us unhappy.
Exercise power
What’s
about using power in the context of the systemic consensus principle?
Power
oriented people might want to make their proposals win by rating them –
correctly – with 0 points and all the others with 10.
This
people very often shoot in their own foot. If their preferred proposal does not
make it, they have given away their chance to rank the other proposals. They
have handed themselves totally over to the others since by their voting they do
not provide any information for decision.
Very
often those people not only abdicate to their influence but really damage
themselves.
The creative process
The full
power of the systemic consensus principle unfolds if it is not only used to
decide on given solutions as shown before but to use it from the beginning. How
this can be done is described in the so called creative process.
Step 1: Describe Problem (s)
Some group
member has announced a problem for the consensing process and describes it from
his personal view. Define the problem as
clear as possible. Find a meaningful headline and a short description of the
problem. Don’t care if there are disagreements concerning the description,
point to step 4, where individual perceptions provide a broad picture of the
problem.
Step 2: Find Interests
When
a group wants to solve a problem or perform a task it is a good idea if the
group tries to approach the issue from a superior position with a more general
question. That stimulates the creativity of the group.
Avoid
question which have the type “yes – no” or “go – no go”. Use instead open
wordings like “what can we do to solve the problem for all participants or persons
concerned in an adequate way?”
For
example: If the original problem is “Shall we spent the 50.000 Euro for a
marketing campaign?” formulate it like “What shall be our strategy to launch
our new product?
It’s
a bit like finding the business requirement behind technical requirements. By
asking “why” you come to the next higher level. This is also known as “chunking
up”.
For
going not too high, ask the group if the level is ok, if this is the problem
they want to talk about.
Several
superior questions are possible. Even if some formulations seem not accurate or
if you cannot agree on a certain formulation, all perceptions can coexist
together. During the process all participants will work towards the
formulation, which seems most accurate to them. Different perceptions might
stimulate the creativity of the group.
Step 3: Gather Information
Now define
for every superior question the framework conditions. To this framework
conditions belongs all information relevant for the solution of the problem.
Make this information available to all participants and explain it if
necessary.
Step 4: Phrase Requests for a Good Solution
Before
we create solution it is a proven good thing to ask the group to formulate
their requests a good solution should fulfill.
Because
of the new success criteria in this process the group is very interested in
hearing all the subjective opinions to integrate them in their suggestions.
This is like “brainstorming”: do not criticize, prejudge or reject any opinion.
On
the other hand every participant has interest to give reasons for his/her
opinion or perception, since this increases the understanding of the others and
influences in this way their solutions.
Note
that the attempt of the group to consider the individual request of a participant
will fail if these requests are too egoistic or intolerant. In this case this
selfish participant risks that his interests will find no more consideration
within the group. Thus it is a good idea to reflect what is reasonable for the
group
Step 5: Create Solutions
Everybody
can participate in finding and creating solutions. Draw the participant’
attention to the point that we look for the proposal which is least rejected by
the group. Thus only those suggestions can be successful which regard the superior
question and the individual request as good as possible.
Feel
free to be creative in this step and try to find many solutions. Every solution
should be allowed. Prevent that somebody criticizes, prejudices or rejects
solution of another participant. Criticism can be expressed in the next step.
Include
her also the zero option.
Step 6: Find Pros and Cons
Now it’s
time to screen the solutions found in the step before. It is important to
understand every proposal, do not hesitate to ask questions necessary to
increase your understanding. Use brainstorming to find Pros and Cons
Step 7: Evaluate Levels of Resistance (Preliminary)
In
this step the solutions will be evaluated by finding the level of resistance of
all participants.
If
there are several good proposals you can also ask which one of the proposals we
will going to implement first.
If
the problem to solve is easy or not too conflict-laden, often with this step we
can finish the process.
If
the problem is more complex, the participants get a first impression of the
ranking of their solutions. Who wants to be successful will try to improve the
position of his/her proposals.
For
bigger groups (roughly more than 10 persons) it is enough to perform the simple
evaluation by hands.
Step 8: Explore Remaining Resistances
If
you want to improve the position of your solution in the ranking it is
important to understand which aspects still lead to resistances by other
participants. Therefore in step 8 we
explore the remaining resistances and objections. We don’t need an argument for
this instead we need the effort to understand and process all suggestions.
Often
I made the experience that particularly in this step the members of the group
feel appreciated and be taken seriously regarding their wishes and needs. This
atmosphere of mutual goodwill and the resulting solidarity formed the group in
a lasting manner.
Step 9: Adjust Solutions
Now
everybody has the possibility to adjust his proposals, combine them with other
solutions, withdraw them or bring in new ones.
Again
creativity is stimulated by the effort for better understanding and integrating
the needs of the others to mitigate their resistance.
It
is possible that in this stadium completely new aspects or ideas may emerge.
For this it might be necessary to go back to step 5 “Create solutions” and go
through parts of the process until no new solutions will emerge.
Everything
which helps the group to find sustainable solutions is allowed – no “mental
property”
Step 10: Adjust Pros And Cons
Now also
the Pros and Cons have to be adjusted to the new solutions. Normally some cons
disappear and some new pros appear.
Step 11: Evaluate Levels of Resistance (Final)
The
final step normally is performed very quickly. Evaluate the group resistance
based on the 10-scale.
In
some sensible cases – election of a person – better use the “term” acceptance”
rather than “resistance” when publishing the result
Prerequisites
What
prerequisites should be fulfilled?
·
All
participants should be affected to the more or less the same amount.
·
There
should be an interest that the group or the team is going on to exist.
·
All
participants who want to take part in the decision must equitable take part in
finding the solutions and evaluation.
·
All
should have the same possibilities of expression in order to have impact on the
decision.
·
All
must have the same information concerning the problem.
·
If
there are dependencies or asymmetric levels of power in the group it is
strongly recommended to do the evaluation anonymously.
