Description Consensus decision making is a creative and dynamic way of reaching agreement between all members of a group. Instead of simply voting for an item and having the majority of the group getting their way, a consensus group is committed to finding solutions that everyone actively supports - or at least can live with. This makes sure that all opinions, ideas and concerns are taken into account. By listening closely to each other, the group aims to come up with proposals that work for everyone. Process that often results in surprising and creative solutions, inspiring both the individual and the group as whole. Way of agreeing to disagree Comprehensive practice for governing and running organizations. Its practices and process are intended to promote rapid and reliable processing of any tension sensed by anyone, anywhere in the organization.



How people can allow the organization to evolve. To free individuals, to empower them to find their own path and right-placement within an organization.



Based upon flow, agility, structure of an organization, dynamic steering, roles "Organization of the community by the community itself"



How do we pass from the 'I' to the 'WE'.



It was invented to evolve democracy. Created by a Quaker to move further from consensus.

Best for Can work in all types of settings - small groups, local communities, businesses, even whole nations and territories. The exact process may differ depending on the size of the group and other factors, but the basic principles are the same.



Group that aims to come up with proposals that work for everyone; to go further by weaving together everyone's best ideas and key concerns.



Groups working towards a more just and equitable society such as small voluntary groups, co-operatives and campaign networks.



Ongoing decision-making mechanism in standing organizations or communities, or less commonly, among groups gathered to make one-time decisions regarding a task at hand. Purpose driven organizations.



It cares about organizations that go beyond profit.



For social organisms that want to shift power to a process and allow for emergence. Where individuals can be more autonomous and interdependent. Differentiation of the individual and integration of the WE.



Set of "rules of the game", which can be used by an organization wishing to move the root of power from owners and heroic leaders to a purpose and a process of continually organizing around that purpose, by integrating whatever is sensed about the purpose through the consciousness of all the humans who choose to participate in expressing the purpose Best for families, communities that want to live in more harmonious. Who want to focus in responsability, right-placement and values rather than projects.



For social organisms that shift power to a group of people.

Other resources Queries that indicate the groups engagement towards consensus success.

Consensus process at its heart is a questioning process

http://www.treegroup.info/topics/consensus_queries.html

Consensus decision making paper.

http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consensus

Steps explained:

http://rhizomenetwork.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/consensus_decision_making.pdf

Complete Guide:

http://movimientotransicion.pbworks.com/f/CONVIVIR+Y+CONSTRUIR+A+TRAV%C3%89S+DEL+CONSENSO.pdf Organization Evolved

http://holacracy.org/sites/default/files/resources/Organization_Evolved.pdf

Differentiating Role and Soul

http://holacracy.org/blog/differentiating-role-and-soul

The Power of Governance

http://holacracy.org/blog/the-power-of-governance

The Irony of Empowerment

http://holacracy.org/blog/irony-empowerment

Contrasting Paradigms: Holacracy & Sociocracy

http://holacracy.org/resources/holacracy-sociocracy-contrasting-paradigms

On the transpersonal paradigm under Holacracy: http://www.holacracy.org/blog/beyond-serving-stakeholders

Sources about sociocracy http://www.sociocracy.info/

principles Conditions:

1.Common goal: Everyone at the meeting needs to be united in a clear common goal – whether it's the desire to take action at a specific event, or a shared ethos. Being clear about the shared goal helps to keep a meeting focused and united.

2.Commitment to reaching consensus on all decisions: Consensus requires commitment, patience, tolerance and a willingness to put the group first. It can be damaging if individuals secretly want to return to majority voting, just waiting for the chance to say “I told you it wouldn't work.”

3.Trust and respect: We all need to trust that everyone shares our commitment, and respects our opinions.

4.Clear process: Everyone needs to understand the process for making decisions you are using. There are lots of variations of the consensus process, so even if people are experienced in using consensus they may use it differently to you! Explain the process at the beginning of the meeting.

5.Active participation: If we want a decision we all can agree on, we all need to play an active role in the decision ­making.

6.Good facilitation: Facilitation helps to ensure that the group works harmoniously, creatively and democratically. When your group is larger than just a handful of people or you are trying to make a difficult decisions appoint facilitators to help your meeting run more smoothly.

Organized around work. Around an evolutionary purpose.



1. Dynamic Steering: Mental shift from predicting how things will or ought to be, to discovering what is needed now based on currently known data.



"Establishing tight feedback loops and frequent steer points throughout the company’s operations. This allows planning and decision-making processes to focus on quickly reaching a workable decision and then letting reality inform the next step, rather than agonizing about what 'might' happen in an effort to conjure up a theoretical 'best' decision that still doesn’t quite get it right." -- Organization Evolved, pg 2 2. Tension Processing: A tension is the felt-sense of a specific gap between current reality and a sensed potential. Tensions can be processed through multiple pathways, including tactical, governance, and strategy meetings. Tensions that matter are those in behalf of the organization. Is not about all bringing our tensions. Its about clear, tangible governance. One tension at a time (in a way that is workable) 3. Distributed Authority: All circles hold strategy, governance, and tactical meetings. Each role has the authority to autocratically make decisions related to its roles and scopes, to the extent that those decision do not conflict with the authority of other roles.



"[...] Holacracy distributes the job of evolving the organization across the entire company. This decreases the overload at the top and the disengagement found elsewhere, while instilling new capacities for learning and adaptability throughout the organization." -- Organization Evolved, pg 4 4. Circle Organization: The organization is built of a holarchy of semi-autonomous circles. Each circle has a purpose and scope, defined by its super-circle, and...



"Each circle has the autonomy and authority to define and evolve the roles, accountabilities, policies, and processes needed to organize and govern its operations in service of its purpose." -- Organization Evolved, pg 3 5. Double-Linking: Sub and super circles are linked via two roles which belong to and take part in the meeting processes of both circles. The sub-circle Lead Link role is accountable for carrying the needs of the super-circle into the sub-circle. The sub-circle's Rep Link role is accountable for carrying the sub-circle's needs into the super-circle.



"Lead Links hold the perspective and functions needed to align the sub-circle with the purpose, strategy, and needs of its broader context. Rep Links carry front-line feedback to that broader context, while guarding the autonomy and sustainability of the sub-circle within that environment." -- Organiation Evolved, pg 3 Sociocracy was built upon the question of 'how can we make decisions that take care of the needs of everyone involved?'



Looking for deeper democracy. Focus in the people to integrate and come together. Human-centered values.



1. Decision Making by Consent: Consent is a method of decision-making whereby the arguments presented in discussing a decision are of paramount importance, and the result of the discussion is that no one present knows of a paramount reason to continue discussion before proceeding with the proposed decision. Note: this is consent, not consensus. 2. Circle Organization: The organization is built of a hierarchy of semi-autonomous circles. Each circle has its own aim, given by the higher-level circle, and has the authority and responsibility to execute, measure, and control its own processes to move towards its aim. 3. Double-Linking: A lower circle is always linked to the circle above it via at least two people who belong to and take part in the decision making of both the higher circle and the lower circle. One of these links is the person with overall accountability for the lower-level circle's results, and the other is a representative elected from within the lower-level circle. 4. Elections by Consent: People are elected to key roles exclusively by consent after open discussion (this is not a democratic majority-vote election!). Most notably, the election process applies to the representative elected from a lower-level circle to a higher-level circle.



Everybody elects people for certain roles. People vote and then if you are elected they ask if you do want to do it. This election gives the power to move more fluidity to make decisions and do what you have to do.

Distinctions An experience of shift from consensus to sociocracy http://communities.ic.org/articles/1504/Sociocracy

Video: http://youtu.be/Hyw0gBsDeho

Consent versus consensus http://www.maxwideman.com/musings/consensus.htm Consensus decision-making is not a Significant Majority: consensus decision-making seeks to avoid the potential divisiveness of majority/minority decisions. Whenever there’s a minority that neither agrees with or consents to a decision, there’s potential for negative results. Consensus is not Unanimity. The search for consensus relies on every person in the circle seeking unity. Group members don’t need to think the same, have the same opinion, or support the same proposal in a unanimous vote. Rather, what is earnestly sought is a sense of the meeting. Alignment or Consensus. In cases of formal structure, consensus is unrealistic. Alignment suggests getting team members facing in the same direction. It means making a concerted effort to help people understand the issues and what their respective roles are. It means asking questions and listening to feedback both from the internal team, as well as others knowledgeable about or affected by the initiative. It means making the necessary adjustments in personnel and strategy as conditions change. In short, while “alignment” uses many of the consultative aspects of consensus process, it also acknowledges the leaders’ ultimate decision-making responsibility. Holacracy is a tool for purpose driven organizations. It is not a tool for communities -- even those based on a shared interest. The differentiation of role and soul: I am not the roles I fill for the organization. The organization is an entity in its own right, distinct from the group of people that energize roles within it. A circle is not a group of people; it's a collection of related roles required to fulfill a purpose. Holacracy is not a consent process; it is based on surfacing and integrating objections. In Holacracy, an objection is a reason why, based on presently known data, a proposal would limit the circle's ability to express its purpose, in a way that wasn't already present in the organization before the proposal. Lead and rep links are not managers. They have a specific set of accountabilities related to cross-circle communication and tension processing. Holacracy goes beyond sociocracy in the sense that it provides the tools for the structure of an organization. It is not human, values driven as a goal yet it does that as it accomplishes the organization's purpose in life. For the sake of the whole not the individual. More rules to make sure that we don´t get stuck in human ego. Video about the difference in between Holacracy & Sociocracy http://www.holacracy.org/resources/holacracy-sociocracy-contrasting-paradigms Harmony as a consequence of being part of an organization that empowers you and honors you to show up and be autonomous. Its not organized around 'what I want' but around 'the work that needs to be done'. It invites human ego to go beyond individual needs into the organization itself. Holacracy embraces the individual by helping differentiate the individual and the organization, to move beyond the typical co-dependent relationship where we project our needs and desires on the organization and look to it to take care of us. Holacracy allows us complete sovereignty and autonomy to use our gifts as individuals, and holds a space where we can show up together to birth a new entity (the organization) and help it express its purpose in life. It's deeply embracing and integrative of both human and organization.

On how Holacracy embraces our full capacity as humans and processing tensions http://www.holacracy.org/blog/processing-tensions The aim of sociocracy is inclusive decision-making because it has proven to be more effective. Both consensus and consent are collaborative processes that result in unified, harmonious actions. There are, however, two valuable distinctions: (1) The cognitive difference between asking for "agreement" and asking for "no objections" is profound. Consensus facilitators are more likely to be searching for agreement. Sociocratic facilitators specifically look for objections within defined parameters. Asking for agreement affects the perception of participants, often adversely, and influences the kinds of solutions they will propose or accept. To hone a good decision, all the objections must be examined carefully. (2) Consensus is specifically a decision-making process and as such is heavily dependent on the skills of the facilitator and the experience of the group. Groups using consensus have no predictable structure for the execution of decisions and must design their own, often building on structures designed to support majority vote decision-making and based on parliamentary procedure. The sociocratic governance structure is specifically designed to support inclusive decision-making and is based on principles derived from cybernetics, systems theory, and complexity theory from which the concept of consent is also derived. Thus the theory base of sociocratic governance and decision-making is more consistent. Good article about this distinctions at:

http://www.communicatingwithcompassion.org/content/consent%20and%20consensus.htm Sociocracy doesn´t have roles accountabilities or gives a 'governance structure' as holacracy.