Agreement And Decision Making

Among the key elements of the quäker consensus is the belief in a common humanity and the ability to decide together. The goal is “unity, not unanimity.” Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard fosters a diversity of thoughts. The moderator is designed to serve the group and not act as a leader. [22] In the Quäker model, as with other consensus processes, the emerging consensus articulation allows members to be aware of the decision that has been taken before them. If members` views are taken into account, it is likely that they will support them. [23] To illustrate how gradients in the chord scale can be used in decision-making within the team, let`s classify the team`s support levels as enthusiastic, lukewarm, lean, or ambiguous. While the majority of team members have strong objections, it is clear that there is no support for the proposal to be considered. The consensus decision-making process often has several roles to play in making the process more efficient. Although the name and nature of these roles vary from group to group, the most common are the moderator, the con sensor, a timekeeper, an Empath, and a secretary or note-taker. Not all decision-making bodies use all of these roles, although the position of moderator is almost always occupied and some groups use additional roles such as a devil`s advocate or Greeter. Some decision-making bodies rotate these roles by group members in order to develop the experience and abilities of participants and to prevent any perceived concentration of power. [24] Enthusiastic support means that most team members register their support closer to the top of the ladder. They are very much in favour of it, they approve it with a small point of contention or they are reserved.

People often think that their group should always strive to achieve the highest level of convergence. But few people realize how much work it takes to find a line of thought that integrates all points of view. In most cases, enthusiastic support is difficult to get. However, a higher level of support is essential for decisions that affect the entire team and all involve the implementation and representation of the decision. In 2001, Robert Rocco Cottone published a consensus model of professional decision-making for consultants and psychologists. [69] Based on social-constructivist philosophy, the model functions as a consensus model, as the clinician addresses ethical conflicts through a consensus negotiation process. Disputes are resolved by mutually agreed arbitrators selected at an early stage of the negotiation process. In other words, the confusion between unanimity and consensus usually leads to the failure of the consensual decision and the group then returns to either majority rule, super-majority rule or dissolves.

Ambiguous support means that team members are everywhere on the scale in response to a problem or proposal. Ambiguous support may mean that the initial problem was ill-defined. In other words, a team can`t agree on a decision if they don`t agree on the problem. Ambiguous results suggest that the team could benefit from more discussions. Nevertheless, many teams would consider this result as a proof of unity, as no veto was exercised. One of the reasons for this complication is that “yes” and “no” can have many different meanings. Yes could mean “I like this decision” or it could mean “I will support this decision, even if I prefer another proposal”. No could mean “I`m not convinced yet, but I`m going,” or it could mean “I could never live with this decision.” The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1569-1795 used consensual decisions in its sejms (legislative assemblies) in the form of the liberum veto. . . .