The important question that groups should ask before entering into any kind of decision-making process is ‘how do we determine what constitutes agreement?’ The definition of agreement can vary widely so this is an important starting point. Consensus building is a decision-making process that typically involves several stages whereby a group initially diverges in thinking then collectively converges to create a decision or solution that is satisfactory to all. The challenge with consensus building is that it takes time!
During a typical consensus-building
process there are two distinct stages that the whole group will
need to collaboratively work through. This includes the diverging and
converging stages. When diverging, there will be several steps seen as group
activities. These steps
include sharing ideas, hearing out and paraphrasing
back what each other states, asking succinct questions for further
collaboration or elaboration, and of course brainstorming: An
approach that needs to be non-judgmental. The diverging stage should
intentionally invite participation, so open-mindedness exhibits the better
starting point.
The steps in the converging
stage of ideas often include merging similar
ideas, sorting or ranking ideas based on level
importance, challenging assumptions to create or elevate innovative
solutions, testing for agreement and calmly dealing with disagreement,
and ensuring everyone has a mutual understanding of the potential final
idea under consideration. Consensus-building therefore speaks to a
process of collaboration and effective communication.
As a process,
consensus-building is different from what people refer to as “achieving consensus.”
Achieving consensus refers to the quality of a decision or the degree of
agreement. A group reporting, “We have a consensus” should mean ‘I
can live with the idea’ and ‘I am willing to defend it and commit to any
necessary follow through.’ Anything less than that level of agreement and
commitment means there REALLY isn't consensus.
Let's now focus on two
specific skill areas that are crucial during the consensus-building process:
Providing effective
feedback and identifying your “natural” conflict handling mode.
Positive feedback is more readily and accurately perceived than negative
feedback. However, when frustrated, anxious, or simply confused, it is
easy for negativity to creep in and rule the discussion. Mindfulness
guided by intentionality, care, optimism, respect and trust helps keep a
positive tone, elevates your leadership, and promotes your standing as a
credible, effective self-advocate.
•Positive
feedback fits what most people wish to hear and already believe about
themselves.
•Negative
feedback is most likely to be accepted ONLY when it comes from a credible
source and objective in form.
•Subjective
impressions carry weight ONLY when they come from a person with high
status and credibility.
Through the Thomas-Kilmann
Conflict Mode Instrument, the researchers describe a person’s
behavior along two basic dimensions:
·
Assertiveness, or
the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns,
·
Cooperativeness, or
the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s
concerns
By contrast, as noted by the
Thomas-Kilmann chart above, consideration of relationship goals compared to
personal goals determines the best mode for handling conflict as exhibited
through specific behaviors:
Avoiding: Behavior is based on
low concern for personal and relationship goals. Preference for avoiding conflict is often
because one feels he or she doesn’t have the tools to deal with the issue or
with others
Accommodating:
Behavior sacrifices personal goals to accommodate relationship goals. When do we typically engage in accommodating
behavior? With significant others. It’s the relationship we care about.
Controlling: Behavior is exhibited when there is very high
concern for personal goals and low concern for relationship goals. This is the “power” approach to addressing
disputes. You see this often in the
for-profit world, whereby everything is seemingly driven by the bottom
line. Controlling behavior is also
highly evident in the parent-child relationship – Most of the viewers here
might agree controlling behavior to handle conflict doesn’t work very well with
adolescents!
Collaborating: Behavior exhibits high concern for both
personal and relationship goals.
Collaborating takes a lot of time, commitment, facilitation and
negotiation skills. This set of skills
are learned or mastered by most of us later in life. When an agreement is worked out through
collaborating behaviors the agreement usually lasts a long time or is seen as
durable.
Compromising:
Behavior accepts that if you would just give up something, the problem could
get it resolved. Be careful about using
this word as typically our culture embraces negotiation or bargaining but
compromise is often a trigger word. It
is also a less optimal approach to addressing disputes because if you go into a
conflict ready to compromise, you are going to compromise. In the continuum, compromise is an end-result
that usually creates consensus.
Understanding the
consensus-building process and the skills needed to reach agreement will
empower you as an active leadership partner.
From an educational perspective, this knowledge helps to effectively
participate in the pursuit of the learning for all mission. Knowing how to build consensus through effective
feedback and handling conflict optimizes your human potential.
To Cite:
Anderson, C.J. (September 30, 2020). Building towards equitable consensus while
handling conflict. [Web log post] Retrieved
from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
References
Anderson,
C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and
perceptions
of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice,
23,
35-61.
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education.
(2nd Ed).
International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:
http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books
Shapley, K.L. & Case, B.J. (2004) Building partnerships with parents. Retrieved
Thomas, K.W. & Kilmann, R. H. (2010) Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument
(TKI).
Retrieved
from https://www.skillsone.com/Pdfs/smp248248.pdf
