Introduction
Most group decision-making processes are subtly violent and coercive, command-obey processes. Whether from a private individual, a board or council, or a majority, there is often some threat present— but rarely spoken— that this commanding party will “do something” to the others, such as fire them, or deprive them of group privileges, if one does not obey their dictates. Successful ruling- or commanding parties have found that regularly hiding this threat, outside of ritual reminders that it is there, gets the best results. This is built into most group structures, which tend to be highly hierarchical, and it gets expressed in soft power management trends such as “servant leadership.” In hierarchical groups, the hierarchy tends to make decisions that benefit its own interests, at the expense of the group (relative gain for absolute loss), even when wrapped in a maternal or paternal exterior. The group is expected to do what the person or people in charge tell them to, even if nicely. The uniqueness of the individuals who are not a part of the decision-making authority, and of their insights, is never factored into the equation. This causes a great degree of stress, mistrust, and resentment.[1]
It matters little whether the decision-making authority is a minority or a majority. The problem results from hierarchy itself. Minoritarian decision-making is only one side of hierarchical decision-making. Majoritarian decision-making is also hierarchical. The difference is that while one oppresses a majority, the other oppresses a minority. Anyone wishing to do away with oppression altogether would do best to do away with any substantial sort of hierarchy in their associations.
The antithesis of hierarchical decision-making—or domination by the minority or the majority over the other— is free and fair agreement, a balance of interests. This produces a much more harmonious result, in which everyone has had their needs factored into the equation, and so leaves much less possibility for the trauma, mistrust, and resentment found to result from hierarchical decision-making.
The practice of arranging consensual group agreements has been solidified into what we now understand to be consensus decision-making. Consensus decision-making is a manner of making non-violent decisions in which everyone is factored into the end result. Rather than a mandate telling people what to do, as in minoritarian decision-making, or trying to “win” over one’s opponent in a majoritarian election or referendum, consensus is about balancing the needs of the involved parties, by coming to a conclusion that each side is, at worst, willing to tolerate, and, at best, excited to collaborate together on.[2][3]
There are many models for accomplishing consensus, but a common concern remains that, in practice, consensus is difficult to achieve, is slow, the results unclear, and the decision-makers imprudent. However, these problems are not essential elements of consensus decision-making. The right process can help to alleviate them.
You are about to learn the most innovative consensus decision-making process, Executive Consensus. And you can only get it from this source.
Executive Consensus alleviates the problems associated with both authoritarian and consensus decision-making. No more dictatorial, difficult, slow, and unclear decision-making. Executive Consensus makes decision-making consensual, quick, clear, and calculated. It does this by delivering an innovative, new process.
The process is quick, having timed segments, disallowing “blocking” for the sake of private agendas, and making use of “consensus voting” to speed things up. It is clear, because the answers arise in an obvious fashion, and are mapped for all to see. And it is calculated, because consensus votes are used merely to assess the negatives and positives associated with a given proposal, rather than to press private agendas.
Foundations
In order to create Executive Consensus, I have looked into the broad range of democratic decision-making and its procedures. I have looked into strict unanimity, modified versions of consensus, various forms of majority-rule, parliamentary procedures and facilitation processes, and different means of vote-counting, proxy voting, and assembly. For Executive Consensus, I have decided to combine the best of what I have been exposed to (while also adding to them my own insights).
Robert’s Rules of Order is an obvious influence for anyone who studies group process, as it is the flagship of parliamentary procedure. Rules of Order are essential to maintaining a cohesive group process. In the Industrial Workers of the World, in which I spent some time, much emphasis is placed on healthy union democracy,[4] and a part of that is adherence to Rusty’s Rules of Order, a modified version of Robert’s Rules. But, although Robert’s and Rusty’s Rules have played a definite influence on me, I am much more interested in consensus-based decisions, than I am in majority-rule. Still, I find it useful to consider different approaches, which may have their pragmatic uses, subsidiary to consensus-proper. And Robert’s Rules fit the bill.
Sam Kaner, et. al. writes a useful guide titled Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, in which he suggests the use of a method of voting (or polling) he calls “gradients of agreement.” Sam Kaner suggests that consensus facilitation is the approach, rather than the decision-rule. This method is similar to the opinion points method found in “The Prefigurative Organization” by Kim Keyser, who adds the ability to assign negative opinion points, or what I refer to as “disapproval” ranking. Dot-voting, or Dotmocracy, with its approach to cumulative voting has also influenced me. These approaches, like the Borda and Condorcet Counts, have been important to my development of the Executive Consensus range-voting method.
Stewart L. Tubbs’s A Systems Approach to Small Group Interaction really helped to affirm consensus decision-making from a systems thinking perspective. Systems thinking in general (including Tubbs), as well as a cybernetics lecture about leadership from Mike Jeffcoat, and Ken Wilber’s Integral Approach, have all lent to my decision to map results on the four quadrants of a Cartesian plane. However, I go about it in my own way.
The best process for consensus decision-making I have found, however, is that of C.T. Butler, in his “On Conflict and Consensus,” a manual on what he calls “Formal Consensus.” In C.T.’s Formal Consensus, the group establishes principles in its constitution, which must be referred to if one is going to make a block to consensus. This keeps arbitrary or highly-personalized preferences from keeping the group from moving forward. However, as I understand it, C.T. is less specific as to what to do if a decision does not have principled concerns when the time runs out, but does have concerns remaining, or when there are competing options, both with strong advocates, with neither of those options going against group principles. In such a case, I suspect that C.T. would prefer to leave the options open, perhaps allowing for a custom to develop. But I am not sure.
Executive Consensus
My approach in Executive Consensus is a little bit different.[5]
When it comes to consensus, matters of principle are where it is important to have unanimous consent. Unprincipled matters—those which do not refer to principles of the group in their concerns— can be passed in some other manner, even an agreed-upon default, without contradicting the Formal Consensus process. Executive Consensus is a strong option for such a default.
Like Formal Consensus, Executive Consensus requires individuals to have principled concerns in order to block consensus. Rather than allowing individuals to block consensus on a whim, and just as in Formal Consensus, individuals are expected to block consensus using principled objections; that is, by referring to a principle of the group, which would be impeded if the action were to be taken. Individuals can block consensus when doing so protects the group’s values, but not for narcissistic, arbitrary, or highly-personalized reasons, unfavorable to the group. The Principles of the group act as a sort of Bill of Rights. If an individual perceives that a decision contradicts the group’s principles, they have the right to put forward a principled objection, and block consensus.
So far, we are more or less in line with C.T. Butler’s variety of Formal Consensus.
However, to get around the problem of disagreeability or competition, there is pre-agreement that— after checking for principled objections (or blocks to consensus) and ensuring the quality of blocks (using Formal Consensus)!— the Executive Consensus process then defers to, a new form of “consensus voting.”[6][7] That is, where principled objections are lacking, consensus is considered to be approximated, and a “consensus vote” is taken, using weighted quad-range-voting with disapproval (WQRVD, “Wah-Quer-Vid”).[8] This assesses the positives and negatives of proposals with only unprincipled concerns remaining.
Executive Consensus is a true variety of consensus decision-making because the deferral of unprincipled concerns to consensus voting is pre-consented to upon the adoption of Executive Consensus by the group using it. The group consents to the outcome of the process before the process is used, with the knowledge that none of the options will represent a challenge to the group's principles or core values. Also, the vote taken is a “consensus vote” (and I encourage compensation to the losing party) and approximates the end results of consensus anyhow, serving as a facilitator of consensus decisions.
Weighted Quad-Range Voting with Disapproval (WQRVD)
Consensus voting, such as the Borda or Condorcet Counts, gives much more widely acceptable results than first-past-the-post voting does. Weighted quad-range-voting with disapproval—the method of consensus voting used in Executive Consensus— has been designed to make the decision even more accurate, and even less private-agenda-oriented. Weighted quad-range-voting with disapproval refers to the Executive Consensus voting process in which one’s merit gives weight to one’s vote, making it count more or less than others. The vote is used to rate options along four ranges, representing Costs and Benefits, Love and Hate, in which disapproval ratings can be expressed, as well as those in favor.
Weighted voting is intended to factor individual merit into operational matters, while promoting the maximum degree of group participation. The weight of a vote refers to the degree of effect the vote has on the outcome. In Executive Consensus, members acquire degrees of merit, or are ranked, in operational matters according to peer review and job scores. These ranks provide one a certain weight to their vote, such that those with more merit have more weight to their vote, and so affect the final outcome more. This is built upon the idea that individuals differ in their merit, and that we tend to trust the decisions of some of our peers more than others.
Range-voting is a type of voting in which one ranks items by giving them a certain number of points, accumulating in a score. Items may be ranked highly or lowly, as a matter of preference or estimation. Highly ranked items pass.
Disapproval ratings allow for a greater spectrum of influence in decision-making, by allowing one to express one’s dissatisfaction with a given option. Disapproval refers to the ability to vote in a disapproving manner, by imposing a negative score.
Quad-range-voting with disapproval allows results to be mapped on a Cartesian plane, for maximum accuracy and clarity. Furthermore, it allows for both the Subjective and Objective factors to be integrated into the decision to be made intersubjective and interobjective before resolving into the Absolute. The Subjective and Objective—as Love/Hate and Cost/Benefit ratings— results are mapped on Cartesian graphs independently from one another, before being reconciled together on an Absolute graph. The Absolute graph provides the final value of the options, which can be treated as a coordinate on the graph.
Voting
Love and Hate are established as percentages, Costs and Benefits are monetary, and the Absolute value is in degrees.
Love and Hate are rated on a percentile scale of 0 to 100%, with Love providing a positive percentile and Hate providing a Negative. In other words, the participant rates the current motion being voted on from 0-100% with regard to how much they Love and how much they Hate the motion, providing both a positive and a negative result. For instance, Love and Hate may be rated as such:
100% Love – 50% Hate = 50% Subjective or
50% Love – 100% Hate = -50% Subjective
Benefits and Costs are rated monetarily, without a cap on them (and without using negative numbers), with Benefits providing a positive and the Costs providing a negative monetary amount. That is, the participant rates the Costs and the Benefits of the motion, each from $0 to $∞. Costs and Benefits may be like this:
$100 Benefit - $50 Cost = $50 Objective or
$50 Benefit - $100 Cost = -$50 Objective
These Subjective and Objective factors are then reconciled into the degrees of the Absolute. To find the degrees, one multiplies the Objective by the Subjective, like so:
100% x $50 = 50° Absolute or
50% x $100 = 50° Absolute
or
-100% x $50 = -50° Absolute or
-50% x $100 = -50° Absolute
However, weights are also to be applied. This means that some participants, those with higher levels of merit to be awarded, have votes that count more than others. For instance, if a participant has a rank of 2, all of their votes will be multiplied by 2, as if they had voted twice. It is up to the organization that is utilizing Executive Consensus to establish the scales of merit that they would like to use for voting powers. Some organizations will want to allow very little difference in voting powers, and so may opt to use a scale from 0-1 or 1-2. Others may wish to allow as much as ten times or more difference, and so may utilize a scale from 0-10 or 0-100. The most advantageous scale will accurately reflect the actual range of differences between those who participate. Importantly, weights should not apply in the general governance of the organization, where everyone should be considered to be equal. That is, votes should not be weighted on the level of general governance, but instead on the level of management and operations. This is because governance should instead reflect a meeting of the minds of partners who have deemed one another equal in terms of consideration, placing the system of weights and measures into the hands of the whole. This ensures that any differences in influence on subsidiary levels remain functional rather than exploitative.
All of the votes are tallied and themselves reconciled into averages, which are posted on the graph.
Explication
Rather than attempting full unanimity (where everyone votes in exactly the same way, as distinguished from unanimous consent, which results from non-objection), or leaving the decision up to the majority or a minority, the decision is ultimately left up to a modified cost-benefit analysis, which takes into consideration the way participants feel about the option, assessed by way of a “consensus vote.”[9]
To promote a more objective, or intersubjective, view of things, perceived costs and benefits and causes of like or dislike toward the option are brainstormed by the group, for the group to reference. Unprincipled concerns from earlier in the deliberation process are listed as costs or dislikes to be considered when voting. Rather than voting purely based on whether a proposal will work in the interest of the individual, or by individual taste preference, the individual is expected to consider the various features of the proposal, and is asked to assess the total costs and the benefits of the proposal. This allows much focus to be placed on the costs and benefits of the group, in a non-biased, and more interobjective and intersubjective, fashion.
The weighted range-voting with disapproval (WQRVD) that is deferred to in Executive Consensus is a vote on the approximation, estimation, guesstimation, appraisal, or perceived extent of these costs and benefits, as well as the assessment of one’s feelings toward the moral, ethical, social, or environmental consequences of the decision. That is, what one is voting on, is the degree to which one believes the decision to be a cost, or to which one hates it, and the degree it is perceived to be a benefit, or to which it is loved.[10] It’s not as simple as what one likes and does not like, but that is factored in.[11] That these are votes assessing the costs and benefits, and the like and dislike, of a proposal— instead of simply choosing one’s favorites according to a blind whim— allows group decisions to be more calculated, and to arise in a less biased and arbitrary, and more objective, intersubjective, and absolute, and in a non-arbitrary or unbiased fashion.
Finalizing the Decision
Once a proposal is assessed by the group using weighted quad-range-voting with disapproval, the results are tallied and graphed onto Cartesian planes, so that everyone may see them and compare them against one another. This provides maximum clarity, such that low cost, high benefit, much loved, and little-hated items present themselves for all to see. Then the proposals are calculated for opportunity and switching costs, which are compared to other proposals or existing projects they may be in competition with, providing final objective, intersubjective, and absolute results.
These results are then filtered according to their ability to be met by the budget and in due time. If the most highly-ranked item meets the budget and time restraints, it is finalized as a decision. Otherwise, it is not. Either way, the second-highest item is considered similarly. If it passes, it is finalized, otherwise it is not. And so on down the list, until the spending budget or time-restraints have met their limit.
An option exists to compare previous and current results, allowing superior results from any time to displace previous decisions or to fill gaps in the budget. In such a case, the switching costs and opportunity costs are considered in the calculation. The use of spreadsheets and account books kept current is necessary for the automated version of this, though a group could manually compare their results without it if they chose to. Once highly-rated items are found to be cost-effective and to meet any given time restraints, the proposal is adopted, and is prepared for project and then operational management.
Those decisions perceived by the group to be of greater benefit than cost, and which are loved more than they are hated—so far as the budget and time-limits can cover them—, and so which are greater in their degrees of Absoluteness, are adopted as official. There is no final vote on what to do after the calculation is made. The cost-benefit calculation provides the final decision. The answer becomes obvious. One could say that it arises, emerges, or is revealed rather than being made.
The conclusions (which are calculated for their costs and their benefits) are more objective, intersubjective, and absolute than any other method, being free of arbitrariness or bias. Executive Consensus promotes objectivity, intersubjectivity, and absoluteness in decision-making, rather than solipsistic, relativistic, or subjective reasoning. This keeps the decisions rational and sensible, while principled objections maintain a strict conscientiousness. Arbitrariness and bias are the enemies of trust and solidarity, and unconscientious is outright vile.
When dealing purely in monetary matters, using Executive Consensus allows the answers to emerge rather objectively. Costs and Benefits, for instance, can be plotted and compared on a graph. It works for estimates, guesstimates, and rigorously calculated numbers alike. More subjective matters-- such as taste and preference--, in being mapped, become intersubjective, in the sense that all can reference the same collective-subjective information. These are done in percentages of like and dislike of, or Love and Hate toward, the item. These are finally reckoned into degrees of absoluteness, producing sturdy decisions with quick, clear, and calculated precision.
To better satisfy participants, more closely approximate unanimity, and solidify a strong consensus, however, I still encourage the adoption a principle or principles that empower or compensates the losers for their loss, rather than dealing in a “winner takes all” approach. Providings minorities with powers of nullification and secession can protect them from popular results of consensus voting that they may find unbearable despite their not being unprincipled, something that should be taken seriously in any true consensus decision-making process. At the same time, we want to make use of consensus voting not to dominate others, but to collaborate on issues that may not have an easy both/and, or synthetic/integral, solution readily apparent. Not all problems can be worked out with a both/and approach, because sometimes momentary antinomies are presented, the synthesis of which may be impossible for the time being. Adopting a mechanism by which losers are compensated for their loss provides a default meta-solution to this problem, and approximates a very stable condition similar to a Kaldor-Hicks efficiency (programs similar to this, which also approximate a Kaldor-Hicks compensation, include Georgist-style land-value taxes and some Pigovian-style taxes).
Executive Consensus performs best with a particular governance, organizational structure, meeting format, budgeting, rules of order, project management, and etc. that have not been explicated here. This excerpt has only provided the heart of Executive Consensus, which is primarily a decision-making method.
Footnotes:
1. And it results from the group’s neglect of alternatives, and rather lazy approach to social dynamics, which itself results from ignorance of the benefits of collective decision-making.
2. Consensus seeks unanimous consent. This is not the same as a unanimous vote, in which everyone votes favorably for the same action to be taken. Instead, everyone must find the end result tolerable, even if it was not their first choice. A unanimous vote would be one in which everyone has the same first choice. That’s different from unanimous consent, or consensus. An individual can block consensus, and keep a decision from being made.
3. Consensus can, however, be used to defer to minoritarian or majoritarian processes, when the group is more concerned with expediency, and when a decision is considered inconsequential.
4. Direct-democracy in the IWW takes part largely through proxy, by way of referendum and delegative democracy, with deliberation occurring through the General Organizational Bulletin and in the newspaper, The Industrial Worker
5. I find C.T.’s methods in Formal Consensus to be favorable for limiting blocks to the non-arbitrary, but would prefer to establish a default process for items lacking principled concerns, but which still lack unanimous consent. For this, I look to the influence of the Borda and Condorcet Counts, Sam Kaner, et. al., and Kim Keyser, and make use of “consensus voting.”
Executive Consensus is not intended to supplant the use of a Formal Consensus process like C.T.’s. It should be used as an extension to Formal Consensus, to make its processes run more smoothly. Executive Consensus makes use of Formal Consensus (such as promoted by C.T. Butler) to ensure that the group does not stray from its principles. The Executive Consensus process ensures that decisions continue forward, without being held back for arbitrary or private reasons. This ensures that any viable idea is put to the test, and is not “shut down” out of irrational emotional preferences, etc.
6. Consensus voting includes the Borda and Condorcet Counts, and other range, point, or spectrum-based voting systems, which are intended to make more widely agreeable decisions than other methods of voting.
7. Borda and Condorcet Counts are considered forms of consensus voting.
8. This is best accompanied by Pigovian arrangements, or a Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, in which “losers” are compensated for their loss, making the decision a gain for all, even the “losers.”
9. Consensus voting provides results which are more generally acceptable, when compared to first-past-the-post voting, as most Americans are familiar with. With first-past-the-post voting, a voter chooses one among a number of options, and the option which receives the most votes wins. This is different from consensus voting, such as the Borda or Condorcet Counts, wherein a voter is encouraged to rank their options in some way, with the option ranked highest winning. Consensus voting of this sort tends to provide results that participants find more mutually tolerable. For instance, if there are three options, A, B, and C, and I rank A the highest, B second highest, and C lowest, and you rank C the highest, B the second highest, and A the lowest, consensus voting would choose option B, which we both ranked as second among the list. First-past-the-post would consider a tie between A and C, which we would have voted for, and would call for a re-vote between A and C, with option B no longer being an option.
And ultimately, there is no favoritism at play. The favorite of a particular minority or of the majority is not necessarily the option taken. The outcome is non-arbitrary, and makes sense to everyone involved, having seen the demands of others, and having factored those in with their own demands.
10. But really, any number of dichotomies can be used, such as expediency and necessity.
11. Sometimes, the answer will be objective, and the vote forgone. In such a case, scientific evidence or fact may be brought to the table, which has no contradictory opinion, making a vote unnecessary.