eBook - ePub
Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making
The CODM Model for Facilitating Groups to Widespread Agreement
Tim Hartnett
This is a test
Share book
- 208 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making
The CODM Model for Facilitating Groups to Widespread Agreement
Tim Hartnett
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
A step-by-step guide to the most efficient and effective method for participatory group decision-making
Are you frustrated by that common challenge called group decision-making? Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making can help! Clearly written and well organized, keep this book by your side and refer to it often. Groups you are part of will function better as a result.
-- Peggy Holman, author, Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity
For any group or organization to function effectively, it must be able to make decisions well. Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making is the first book to offer groups (and group facilitators) a clear and efficient path to generating widespread agreement while fostering full participation and true collaboration.
Poised to become the new standard for group facilitation, Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making combines:
- Deep insight into complex group dynamics
- Effective conflict resolution techniques
- Powerful communication skills
Groups using this simple, step-by-step approach experience increased cohesion and commitment and stronger relationships as a result of their successful cooperation.
Incorporating the principles of collaboration, inclusion, empathy, and open-mindedness, the consensus-oriented decision-making (CODM) process encourages shared ownership of group decisions. The method can be used in any group situation, regardless of whether the final decision-making power rests with a single person or team, a vote of members, or unanimity.
Business, government, nonprofit, social, and community organizations can all benefit from Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making. Whether you are a designated facilitator or an active participant, understanding this powerful framework will help you contribute to the success of your group through achieving maximum participation and efficiency, a clearer decision-making process, better decisions, and improved group dynamics.
Tim Hartnett, PhD, is a group facilitator and mediator who blends extensive knowledge of non-violent communication with insightful understanding of group dynamics and effective techniques for conflict resolution.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making by Tim Hartnett in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Business & Processo decisionale. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
1
The Principles of
Consensus-Oriented
Decision-Making
Consensus-Oriented
Decision-Making
(CODM)
Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making (CODM) is a powerful group decision-making process. It can be applied to virtually any type of decision in almost any type of group. Whatever the content of the decision a group is addressing, CODM can be used as the process for making that decision. The process is built upon several key principles of effective group decision-making. These principles ensure that a groupâs decisions are made in a way that is both participatory and efficient.
The acronym CODM is pronounced co-dem. While the abbreviation stands for Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making, the pronunciation calls to mind the prefix co- as in cooperative, and dem, the root of the word democracy, meaning rule by the people. Appropriately, the CODM process facilitates cooperation toward decision-making that includes everyone.
Consensus and Unanimity
A consensus-oriented process can be used in conjunction with any type of final decision rule.
Understanding CODM begins with understanding the term consensus. Often people use the terms unanimity and consensus synonymously. Greater clarity is achieved, however, when the different meanings of these words are parsed. Consensus is defined by Websterâs dictionary as âagreement of the majority in sentiment or beliefâ and by the Oxford dictionary as âgeneral agreement.â For group facilitators, consensus is most useful as a term describing the process of making decisions collaboratively. Thus, a consensus-oriented process is one in which people work together to reach as much agreement as possible. Unanimity (or unanimous consent) is more specific. It refers to the outcome of a vote showing all members are agreed. Consensus is the process. Unanimity is one possible result of a consensus process.
Once a consensus process has been used to develop a proposal, the group must have a way to finalize a decision. The criterion a group uses for this is called a decision rule. Some groups use unanimity as their decision rule. No decision is final unless everyone agrees. Most groups, however, use other decision rule options. They may finalize decisions by voting (majority or supermajority) or by the verdict of a person-in-charge or governing committee.
A consensus-oriented process can be used in conjunction with any type of final decision rule. For instance, a business owner might use the CODM steps to guide her employees in developing a plan for reducing unnecessary paperwork in the office. All the employees may participate and collaboratively form a new plan, knowing that the owner will ultimately decide whether to adopt the plan. Alternatively, a team of softball players might use a consensus process to reach as much agreement as possible on a set of guidelines for adding players to the team. If they do not all agree, however, the team tradition may dictate that a majority vote is enough to make a decision on the most popular proposal they have been discussing.
The confusion of the terms unanimity and consensus have led many people to some false assumptions. Some have resisted the idea of using a consensus process because they thought it would mean the group could not make a decision without unanimous consent. Others have thought that requiring unanimity is a necessary component of any consensus process. Once the terms are better understood, it becomes more clear that groups can choose to use a consensus process whether or not they use unanimity as a final decision rule. There will be more discussion of decision rules in Chapter 3, and more discussion of the dynamics of requiring unanimity in Chapter 12.
Participatory Decision-Making
CODM encourages maximum participation by all of the group members that will be affected by a decision. This fully participatory process has several aspects, each contributing to the quality of both the decisions made and the experience of the participants.
Inclusion
Including everyone who will be affected by a decision is helpful in multiple ways. First, it ensures that all the impacts of the decision will be well considered. Each point of view on the matter gets a voice in the deliberation. Thus, unforeseen problems are less likely to emerge in the implementation of the decision. This benefit is sorely missing when decisions are made by either a single leader (or subgroup), who may be unaware of some of the potential impacts of the decision.
Second, including the whole group in a decision-making process builds a sense of unity and cohesion in the group. Everyoneâs input is acknowledged as important, which helps all participants feel valued. Additionally, whole group discussions ensure that all members of the group are in communication with each other. When an organization has separate departments, physically isolated members, factions or emotionally estranged members, a group meeting may be the only direct contact some group members have with one another.
If an organization is large, including all members may not be feasible. In this case, care should be taken to select the people who will be included in decision-making meetings. It is wise to include at least one representative of any significant subset within the organization. If the decision process involves multiple meetings, then there should be a way for the representatives to communicate with members of their subset between meetings.
Taking turns considering one idea at a time creates the safety and focused attention required to discern the merits of any particular idea.
Additionally, decision groups can include thought leaders on specific topics. A thought leader is someone who may not have an official role, but whose expertise on or attention to a particular topic is well known. Including thought leaders helps make sure that all discussion of the topic is brought to the decision-making meetings. This is much preferable to situations where the official discussion of a topic competes with unofficial meetings of people excluded from the official process.
When a groupâs decisions affect people outside the group, the principle of inclusiveness can also be important. For instance, a group that provides a service to the community might want to include input from the community members being served. Identifying all the stakeholders and determining what degree of inclusiveness to offer them in decision-making are key considerations in many situations.
Open-Mindedness
For a group to work together effectively, the members must value being open-minded. Though we often are very convinced of our own opinions, the successful cooperation of a group is only possible if we are willing to consider each otherâs ideas as well. When all parties agree to give everyoneâs ideas a fair hearing and sincere consideration, the potential for conflict and entrenched argument is dramatically reduced.
Open-mindedness can be enhanced by a structure that ensures that each personâs ideas will receive attention in fair turn. Taking turns considering one idea at a time creates the safety and focused attention required to discern the merits of any particular idea. This benefit is lost when group discussions devolve into a chaotic and competitive struggle that pits ideas against each other before they are fully articulated or well understood.
When open-mindedness is particularly hard to elicit, some group development training may be helpful. Team-building exercises or more comprehensive relationship improvement retreats can address the background tension that sometimes stifles open-minded discussion. Facilitation of this type of group activity is outside the scope of this book. But it is worth noting that groups willing to devote time and resources to team-building are likely to experience greater openness in decision-making.
Empathy
Empathy is a vital part of any functional group process. For people to work well together, they must be able to understand each other. And if they can understand not only the words and ideas expressed, but also the underlying feelings and needs, then a real sense of connection can develop. While connection may not be an overt goal of a particular group, the fact remains that people cooperate better and feel more motivated to contribute when they feel more connected to the group. An empathetic process is one where group members take time to clearly express their understanding of each other. It not only helps avoid the miscommunication of ideas; it strengthens the relationships between group members.
Collaboration
Collaborative group discussions are often the best way to devise solutions to complex problems. Each person has both a unique perspective and a unique genius to bring to problem solving. When they work together poorly, too many cooks can spoil the broth. But when members successfully collaborate, the group can come up with creative solutions that no single person was capable of concocting.
The process of collaboration requires that participants release any entrenched positions they may have held prior to the meeting. They are directed by the facilitator to identify all the underlying needs and concerns of each party affected by the decision. The resulting solution is therefore the groupâs best attempt to meet as many needs as possible. This is in contrast to non-collaborative decision-making, where one solution that meets certain needs is pitted against another solution that meets competing needs.
Shared Ownership
Participatory decision-making fosters a sense of shared ownership of the resulting decisions. When group members are included; when they are heard with an open mind; when both their thoughts and their feelings are clearly understood and when their ideas are woven into a collaborative solution they are likely to feel a shared responsibility for the decisions reached. This shared ownership of the decision often results in a heightened commitment by all group members to ensure successful implementation of the decision. Apathy, passive-aggressive behavior and other forms of undermining become far less likely. Instead, a shared internal motivation to succeed becomes the dominant dynamic.
Marcel lived in a large household of grad students near the University of California in Santa Cruz. The group of renters shared a large yard that, according to the lease, was the responsibility of the tenants to maintain. Marcel considered this duty to be sadly neglected, and he decided to take some leadership to solve the problem. He crafted a list of landscaping tasks and constructed a chore wheel to distribute responsibility for these tasks equally to all household members. He posted the chore wheel where everyone could see it, along with a note on the wall asking for everyoneâs cooperation.
Unfortunately, after several weeks it became apparent that few people were actually doing any yard work. ...