Multi-Expert Consensus

Resolving complex issues sometimes requires expertise from across such a wide array of knowledge domains that no single person can make the relevant decisions. Examples include the choice of a vendor to execute a complex project, or whether and how to make an acquisition that will increase dramatically the size of the enterprise. To make such decisions, most organizations assemble working groups with representatives from across the organization. Together they cover all relevant knowledge domains. They discuss the issues, gather information, and follow a process that leads to a joint decision or recommendation.

Consensus is a common pattern for making such decisions. Ironically, though, some of these groups don't develop a meta-consensus — a consensus about what the consensus process entails. For these groups, trouble can arise when one or a few of their members hold opinions that differ from the rest, preventing the group from reaching a high-quality decision with all of its personal relationships undamaged.

Definitions of consensus processes are widely available [Bressen 2007] [Sandelin 2007], though among these definitions there is some variation. For example, most consensus processes allow a single person to block a decision, but process definitions might differ in what they regard as valid uses of the right to block a decision.

It's therefore useful to define carefully a consensus process for groups whose members consist of experts from a variety of knowledge domains that cover the solution space of the problems they're addressing. I offer a few of the essential design elements below.

Know how to offer blocks

In consensus decision making, a block is a choice by a group member to oppose the proposal under consideration. It can prevent the group from adopting the proposal. Blocks are especially important for multi-expert consensus processes, because a single individual might be the group's only source of expertise for a particular knowledge domain related to the proposal at hand.

The basis of the block must be an argument that the proposal under consideration is inconsistent with the group's values, charter, interests, or purpose. Inappropriate uses of blocks are those based on personal or parochial preferences or objectives.

Offering a block can be a courageous act. I use the term offering because a block offered in good faith truly is a gift to the group. It causes the group to stop and take account of the objections raised by the person offering the block. A block provides information to the group. It's a way for a member to advise the group of a perceived deficiency in the proposal.

Know how to respond to blocks

When a dissenter offers a block, the group is well advised to respect the block. They should hear the dissent with a view to adjusting the proposal, if appropriate, to take account of the dissent. This is especially important in multi-expert consensus processes. To disrespect — or to reject — the dissent of the group's only expert in a given domain entails elevated risk of a bad decision.

In healthy situations, groups work to remove blocks by adjusting proposals. In less-than-healthy situations, groups work to remove blocks by pressuring the dissenters, or failing that, by ejecting dissenters. When pressuring behavior appears, the issue is no longer the proposal. Rather, the issue has become group health. The group must first address the issue of psychological safety and the abuse of the consensus process. Until those issues are addressed, decisions regarding the original proposal are unlikely to be constructive.

Know when to express reservations

A group member can express reservations about the proposal without blocking it. Expressing reservations is a stance that enables group members to register concerns openly, to enable the group to consider modifications to the proposal to account for those reservations. The group can in any case move forward, whether or not the dissenter's reservations are fully addressed.

Expressing To disrespect — or to reject —
the dissent of the group's only
expert in a given domain entails
elevated risk of a bad decisionreservations is another sort of gift to the group. It enables a member to raise issues that might trigger thoughts on the part of other group members who might not otherwise have considered the dissenter's perspective. Indeed, some of those other group members might then discover reservations of their own, or they might consider offering a block, or they might consider altering a block they might have been intending to offer.

Expressing reservations thus affords the group new opportunities to explore adjusting and strengthening the proposal.

Know when to recuse yourself

Occasionally a proposal creates a conflict of interest for one or more group members. There are two kinds of such conflicts that can arise in expert work groups. The first is a proposal that personally benefits the group member, or someone close to the group member, directly or indirectly. The second is the dual of the first: it personally harms the group member, or someone close to the group member, directly or indirectly. In either case, in my view, the affected group member is obliged to withdraw from the decision process.

Personal harm or benefit need not be financial. It can be political. For example, the benefit might be harm to a political rival of the group member. Or it might be in the form of an expansion of responsibility — and therefore increase in political power — for the group member.

In some cases, a recusal can leave the group with a void in its coverage of important and relevant knowledge domains. Recusal then necessitates recruitment of a replacement group member for discussions of the proposal that created the need for recusal.

Even so, the group member is not obliged to disclose the reason for the recusal. This condition is intended to prevent group members from failing to recuse because they fear the consequences of disclosing the reason for the recusal. Questioning why a member recuses himself or herself is therefore deprecated, because it discourages good-faith recusals.

Finally, everyone must understand that making a comment like, "I told you so" based on the consequences of any decision reached by consensus, whether for good or ill, is a performance issue. Everyone who participated in the consensus decision must support the ultimate decision. If any participants felt they could not support the decision, they were obliged to block it. Choosing not to block it is a commitment to support it.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Problem Solving and Creativity:

Emergency Problem Solving

In emergencies, group problem solving is unusually challenging, especially if lives, careers, or companies depend on finding a solution immediately. Here are some tips for members of teams that are solving problems in emergencies.

We Are All People

When a team works to solve a problem, it is the people of that team who do the work. Remembering that we're all people — and all different people — is an important key to success.

The Tyranny of Singular Nouns

When groups try to reach decisions, and the issue in question has a name that suggests a unitary concept, such as "policy," they sometimes collectively assume that they're required to find a one-size-fits-all solution. This assumption leads to poor decisions when one-size-fits-all isn't actually required.

Wishful Significance: II

When we're beset by seemingly unresolvable problems, we sometimes conclude that "wishful thinking" was the cause. Wishful thinking can result from errors in assessing the significance of our observations. Here's a second group of causes of erroneous assessment of significance.

Anticipate Counter-Communication

Effective communication enables two parties to collaborate. Counter-communication is information provided by a third party that contradicts the basis of agreements or undermines that collaboration.

See also Problem Solving and Creativity and Problem Solving and Creativity for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info