How to Build Consensus
One of our first clients, the National Sea Grant Law Center, didn’t hire us for conflict - they needed a skilled facilitator to lead their Building Consensus process around seaweed food safety regulations. (Yes, you read that right - seaweed food safety regulations.)
This nonprofit had previously run a single Building Consensus process, that involved getting all concerned parties into a room with a professional facilitator. They sought to refine their process, and they knew that this particular topic would be thorny.
What made it so thorny?
Lots of different types of people - of varying professions and roles - had a lot to say about it.
The issue spanned multiple states, types of seaweed, and types of waterways.
Regulators typically focused on safety, while industry representatives typically focused on finding the quicker and more profitable processes.
Researchers also had a lot to say and wanted to be involved.
To make things extra difficult, CM&F was hired in 2019 - and the work continued into the pandemic, necessitating a switch from in-person discussions to all-online discussions.
How We Helped
It’s always helpful to have a meeting facilitator who is completely neutral on the outcomes - when a neutral third party runs things, participants are more likely to be open-minded and trusting.
CM&F built on the existing Building Consensus process the Law Center had used in the past, by:
Ensuring online meetings used tools accessible to all participants.
Creating opening exercises that helped people get to know each other - with both professional and personal interests, thereby helping folks feel more connected with each other.
Spotlighting the research from NSGLC staff, which as an organization was already trusted by most participants precisely because their research is seen as neutral and high-quality.
Utilizing exercises that served a specific purpose understood by all, including one of my favorites - the Empathy Map - explicitly making space for participants to think through what others’ experiences and priorities might be.
Keeping communication clear and decision-making processes transparent.
Tools We Used
We used Mural and Zoom, primarily, because - at least at the time - all participants could access these systems. Mural is an online white board we’ve written about before, and - well - don’t we all know Zoom now? (Does anyone feel bad for Skype?)
I also used SessionLab to plan the meetings collaboratively with the Law Center staff in advance - so everyone was always on the same page, and we could work asynchronously on the same agendas. Of course there were also emails and phone calls, but collaborating directly on the agenda itself in SessionLab - as well as exploring its extensive library - made the work much easier.
Finally, of course, there were PowerPoint decks and PDFs - tried-and-true tools to communicate.
Tips for Building Consensus - No Matter the Topic
When you need to build consensus from diverse points of view, it’s important to make a point of exploring the diversity - the ways that people do not agree. Otherwise, consensus can only be begrudging - which means it won’t last.
Try adapting this process for your needs:
Ahead of time:
Set the tone: Let people know that consensus is needed, and why, and that you want the consensus to be something that lasts.
Consider bringing in a visualization specialist like See In Colors. When meeting participants can see their ideas being drawn out in front of them, they are more likely to feel heard, share creative ideas, and remember what was discussed.
Create a space where everyone can contribute: Whether in-person or online, consider all the needs that participants bring.
Will everyone be able to communicate? It may be hearing and speaking, but also seeing or otherwise communicating needs and points of view.
What will you do to ensure introverts feel able to contribute? What about people with neurodivergent brains?
Make sure you ASK for different points of view. It’s as simple as: Who has a different point of view? Can we hear from someone who sees the issue differently?
If it seems like everyone’s in agreement, considering exploring a tool like the Empathy Map, which asks participants to explore what life and needs might be like for someone different from them.
Give people enough time to fully air all points of view - and when people bring in statistics or facts, it is often appropriate to ask them to back those up - but follow the vibe in the room. If no one is disputing a number that was thrown out, then it may be that either (a) everyone already understands that it’s the right number, or (b) the number doesn’t matter.
Make the decision-making process clear: Does everyone have to be on the same page? Do we all need to agree to a single course of action? Are we just airing ideas and the decision will be made at another time - when and by whom?
Don’t be afraid to ask direct questions: Can you live with that? What if we did do that? What if we didn’t? What if nothing changed?
Finally, as the group moves itself toward consensus - this happens more than you’d think! - don’t be afraid to keep asking questions. (In mediation we call it “reality testing.”) What happens if something goes wrong? If someone doesn’t play by these rules? Game out all the scenarios with the group to make sure people feel fully comfortable with whatever the consensus is.