Helping Groups Make better decisions:Why consensus is not always pure
Teams, boards, task forces and other working groups often stumble over decision-making. It is often not actually about the actual decision they need to make. Rather it is that the group has never had a conversation about how they make decisions – what is their process? Are they working on consensus? Majority rule? The boss decides?
Often the group has a practice. Yet if that practice is not made explicit, then misunderstandings frequently occur. This is one reason hiring a facilitator for important meetings can be helpful – the facilitator will explicitly guide the group through these steps.
Discuss Decision Making
Taking the time to discuss how your group makes decisions helps take the guess work out of the equation. For each decision the team needs to be clear what issue is being decided. During the discussion, multiple issues may have been raised. This can make it a bit cloudy what is actually being discussed and decided.
Call the question
In Robert’s Rules – this would be the point of ‘calling the question’ – you may not be that formal in your discussion guidelines but including a pause point to clarify what the group is deciding is critical. Then clarifying who is deciding this particular issue – is this within the scope of the group? Might it be helpful to have a subset of the group work on the issue and bring back a recommendation? Is the discussion serving as an input while the decision ultimately lies with the person in charge?
Jumping to action
Groups often want to jump to action and resist taking time on ‘process’ issues. Yet taking the time to discuss your process can actually save time in the long run.
Group challenges in productive discussions
Groups have a range of different challenges when engaging in productive conversations and discussions and then ultimately coming to a decision. These include:
mismatches of understanding about when you are still considering options and when you are moving to a decision
completely answering ‘why’ before the group starts thinking about the ‘how’
Separating the how from the what
What is consensus and why it does not always have to be pure
Have we decided or are we still discussing?
When a group is considering an issue, ideally there is a discussion that considers a wide range of options. Then the discussion comes to a clear end point with a decision. Once a decision is made the group moves to action. A very useful model for understanding what often happens comes from Sam Kaner’s book, Facilitators Guide to Participatory Decision Making. This image illustrates this ideal.
Sam Kaner’s Facilitators Guide to Participatory Decision Making
What happens more frequently is that those who are more action oriented believe a decision has been made. At the same time those who want to consider more options believe the item is still under discussion. This image shows this too frequent reality of group process.
Sam Kaner’s Facilitators Guide to Participatory Decision Making
It is critical then for the person facilitating the meeting to clarify what the group is doing at that moment and whether they are moving toward a decision as well as what options are on the table.
The challenges with sticking with why
Yet even with clear decision processes, groups often rush ahead without pausing to fully explore the deeper purpose behind their actions. Our action bias means that groups also struggle with fully considering why they take a particular action. Despite the popularity of Simon Sinek’s “Start with Why,” nonprofit leadership groups often have trouble staying at that level. Think of a time when your nonprofit board or leadership team was meeting and someone brought up a new idea for a new program. It’s likely that without a lot of discussion about why you should or should not do the program, the discussion jumped into how you would do the program.
Is this new initiative strategically important?
I was working with a nonprofit organization, and another organization had come to them with an idea for a partnership. The senior leadership charged with managing the strategic direction of the organization assembled to consider the proposal. Rather than staying in the ‘why’ – why should we enter this partnership? Is it in alignment with our mission? Does it support the goals articulated in our strategic plan? Will it help us reach a key audience? Will it build our brand and reputation? Does it capitalize on our core competencies? Will it help us strengthen key capacities? Will we be filling an important gap in the market?
Jumping to how
Instead, they skipped right over those questions and had a long discussion about how the partnership could work. Who would be involved? When would be good timing to get started? The key question of whether the partnership was important for the organization was missed. Without answering the “why” questions, it is premature for the group to worry about the how.
Stay with the ‘why’
The next time you are starting something new – considering a new idea for a new program or initiative or starting a new project, spend some time discussing the why. Why is this important for us? And if there is not enough ‘there, there’ when you answer why, remember you can also choose not to pursue the new idea!
The value of separating the how from the what
Once you’ve clarified the ‘why,’ it becomes equally important to thoughtfully separate the ‘what’ from the ‘how’ — ensuring the team focuses first on the purpose and goals before jumping into the details of implementation.
Fears of political decision making
I was once on a large cross-functional team working together on an enterprise-wide IT project. In doing some work with the team, I uncovered that one of the team members’ biggest fears was that each person, representing their department, would have wish list items. They feared the group would end up in conflict over priorities. They also feared that a political process would override considering options on their merits.
Building a decision tree
I led the group through a process to talk through how we were going to make the decision before we had to make any specific decisions. We framed overarching project goals and then agreed to prioritize the options/wish list items based on how they aligned with the goals. We then created a decision tree using criteria the group had jointly discussed. When it ultimately came time to prioritize our features list, the group was able to make the decision is just one meeting. The time we had spent up front saved the group time when it was decision making time and spared the group the conflict it feared.
Consensus doesn’t have to be pure: Consensus continuum
While clear decision-making structures can help groups move efficiently, another common challenge in nonprofits is the mistaken belief that true participation always requires full consensus. Nonprofit organization often fall into the trap in the belief that consensus must be pure.
How to be participatory and make decisions
Nonprofits often value participatory decision making. Yet often nonprofit leaders think the only way to achieve participation is to strive for consensus. Groups often fear working on a consensus basis because they are afraid of the time it will take to decide.
Fear of analysis paralysis
They are afraid of being caught in a spiral of discussion, more discussion and yet more discussion and no resolution. They may be afraid of this because they may assume that everyone must be 100% behind a decision for the group to move ahead.
Consensus continuum
Once the nonprofit group is clear about what they are deciding (calling question as I described above), a useful tool for testing the level of agreement is the consensus continuum. A consensus continuum lays out a range 1-5 0r 1-10 with one being a veto and 10 being in full agreement. Participants can then say where they are on the scale.
This is another instance where it is useful to have discussed the tool before the group has to actually make a decision. For example, how many people you need to have in the 1-3 on a 10-point scale zone will depend on how high stakes a decision it is. Using this as a check in can move along even decisions that may seem like they are low stakes but are taking a long time. You may find it is higher stakes for some in the group.
Sam Kaner’s Facilitators Guide to Participatory Decision Making
Applying the continuum
I was part of a nonprofit board that used this continuum when it was deliberating about a very challenging situation. There was no good solution to the high stakes problem we were facing. There were only several bad choices to choose from. Which bad choice was better than the other? We deliberated for a long time. Deliberation happened over multiple meetings, over multiple weeks. Ultimately, we were able to make a decision that everyone in the group could live with even if it was not their preferred option by using this tool.
Making time for process
Nonprofit groups often want to jump to action and resist taking time on ‘process’ issues. Being clear about how the group makes decisions is a core process issue that rarely gets discussed. Taking the time can save the group both time and angst in the long run.
Have a group that needs help with how they are working together?
Creating clarity, alignment and shared understanding
Ultimately, better group decision making isn’t about choosing the perfect model—it’s about creating clarity, alignment, and shared understanding. When groups slow down to define how they’ll decide, revisit the deeper “why” behind an initiative, and recognize that consensus doesn’t always have to mean unanimity, they build the foundation for more thoughtful, equitable, and effective decisions. Investing in these conversations may feel like a delay, but more often than not, it’s what allows groups to move forward with confidence—and without unnecessary conflict. If your team is stuck or facing a thorny decision, consider bringing in a facilitator to guide the process and help you get unstuck together.