Consensus And Agreement Difference


The Quäker model has been adapted by Earlham College for application to secular environments and can be effectively applied in any consensual decision-making process. Since the consensus decision focuses on the discussion and requires input from all parties involved, it can be a tedious process. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions need to be made quickly or where it is not possible to gather the views of all delegates in a timely manner. In addition, the time required to participate in the consensus process can sometimes be a barrier to the participation of those who are unable or unwille to make the commitment. [50] However, once a decision has been made, it is possible to act more quickly than a decision made. American businessmen complained that they had to discuss the idea with everyone, even the janitor, during negotiations with a Japanese company, but as soon as a decision was made, the Americans found that the Japanese could act much faster because everyone was on board while the Americans were struggling with internal resistance. [51] Unanimity is achieved if the entire group appears to accept a decision. It has drawbacks in that other differences of opinion, improvements or better ideas are then hidden, but the debate actually ends and moves to an implementation phase. Some consider unanimity to be a form of groupthing, and some experts propose encoding systems.

. on the recognition of the illusion of the symptom of unanimity”. [42] In Consensus is not Unanimity, consensus practitioner and activist leader Starhawk wrote: Approval means there are no significant objections on a topic. Consent does not require consent, confirmation, or even preference. Consent is obtained if no one is aware of a risk that we cannot afford. As the circle soon learns, there is a difference between adapting solutions for integrating objections (consent) and discussing with members who “block” decisions (consensus). The first allows the system that is your circle to integrate complex feedback and self-regulate more effectively while moving towards the common goal; The circle becomes resilient and responsive, like a healthy system in the natural world. This last point reduces confidence and deprives energy. The approval is not intended to satisfy the “lowest common denominator”. It is a question of finding solutions from collective intelligence. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1569-1795 used consensual decisions in its sejms (legislative assemblies) in the form of liberum veto.

The liberum veto was a kind of unanimous agreement and originally allowed any member of a Sejm to veto a single law by calling Sisto activitatem! (Latin: “I stop!”) Or never pozwalam! (In Polish: “I don`t allow!”). [71] Over time, it became a much more extreme form, where each member of Sejm could, unilaterally and immediately, force the end of the current session and repeal all previously passed laws of that session. [72] Due to the excessive use and deliberate sabotage by neighboring powers that bribed Members of Sejm, the legislation became very difficult and weakened the Commonwealth. Shortly after banning the liberum veto as part of its constitution of 3 May 1791, the Commonwealth dissolved under pressure from neighbouring powers. [73] Consensus is not a majority decision. Every opinion counts. Consensus takes dissent into account and is addressed to it, although it does not always take it into account. An option favoured by 51% of the population is usually not enough to reach a consensus. One option that is narrowly favored is almost never consensual….

Comments are closed.