Consent decision making

Language: Español Deutsch Português

Consent decision making

Between all of those, what is consent decision making? You can think of consent as a version of consensus. 

But instead of asking everyone, “Do you agree?”, we ask, “Do you object?” If no one objects, there is consent.

(Note that the difference between consensus and consent continues to produce some controversy. Often, however, this compares apples and oranges because consent is a decision-making method, not a complete governance system. Read more.)

In order to understand the large impact of this little nuance between agreeing and not-objecting, it is crucial to understand the concept of “range of tolerance”.

Range of tolerance

Your personal preference will be what you would choose if you made the decision by yourself and for yourself. The ‘range of tolerance’ is everything that is not our preference but also not something we would object to. A proposal might not be our preference – but we don’t have a reason to object either.

As a picky vegetarian, I might not prefer to eat Brussel sprouts (I would not make them when cooking for myself) but I’ll eat them where they are there. I’d object to meat, however.

This visualization illustrates that the area of overlap between “no objection” is considerably bigger than the overlap between personal preferences. If we all had to agree, we would only make a few decisions (and that translates to simple consensus, “everyone has to agree”).

If we make decisions using consent decision making, we can make many more decisions because we have much more room to work with. The more decisions we make, the more we try out and learn – leaving the trap of endless talking and hypothesizing.

What are objections?

We need to understand the notion of an aim to understand how objections are being defined. Organizations are centered around an aim – the thing they try to do together – not individual preferences.

Aims capture what a circle (or an organization) is actually doing. Examples for aims are “baking and selling healthy bread and pastry in N. Amherst”, or “running a safe and holistic eldercare facility in Brattleboro”. 

In consent decision making, objections are defined against that aim: a circle member objects to a proposal if they have reasons to assume that carrying out that proposal would harm the circle’s aim. For instance, if a bakery coop decided to buy frozen products to bake and sell, a worker-owner might object because selling ready-made products harms the bakery’s aim of “baking and selling healthy bread and pastry.”

That means that objections are now a good thing. After all, if something clearly negatively impacts the organization’s work, we have to object. That’s what an objection is. Another way of saying it is that checking for consent/objections is a way to check any decision against the backdrop of our aim. If someone notices that we’re outside of our agreements on what we do, we’d be grateful if someone points that out in time.

Objections in sociocracy are not a roadblock, however. Having options of how to move forward by incorporating the objection is a true strength of sociocracy. See how to handle objections in consent decision making.

The 3-step process of consent decision making 

Understanding the proposal

Presenting the proposal is important so everyone knows what the proposal is – read it out loud, or find another way of ensuring that everyone in the room knows what the proposal says – make sure you all read the same, current wording.

When everyone knows the proposal, circle members may have questions – and we take time to answer them.

Clarifying questions are often asked in rounds. Depending on group size, on how many questions you are expecting (and on how familiar or complex the proposal is), you can choose to gather questions in one round first and then let the author(s) answer the questions, or you can let the author or someone else answer questions one by one as they are asked.

A good prompt to start a clarifying questions round is to ask the circle, “What do you need to know so you understand the proposal?” because focusing on the understanding of the proposal will not sidetrack you into a discussion. To support circles even more in distinguishing between their questions for understanding and their opinions about a proposal, these are statements that will denote a clarifying question. If a group is new to this process, it is supportive for everyone to use a statement like:

Quick reactions

In the quick reactions round, as the second step of the consent decision-making process, everyone gets a chance to give their opinion on a proposal. This works best if every contribution is brief – five sentences or less. No worries, if you have an objection, you will have more time to speak.

Some areas that can be touched on in quick reactions

• Whether you like the proposal or not, as quick as “I like this proposal.”, or more specific by saying why you like it. What problem is this decision going to solve in your eyes? What makes you confident?
• “I support this proposal because I see it as compatible with my personal aim to ________. I see this, particularly in the part of the proposal that says ___________. “
• “I support this proposal because I understand it to support the organization’s (aim to/value of) _______, particularly in the part of the proposal that says __________.”

• You might say that you are planning to object. Keep it brief in the quick reaction round – your time to explain your objection will come. For this round, a one-sentence statement like the following is enough: “I do not support this proposal because I don’t believe it effectively supports the organization’s (aim to/value of) ____, particularly in the part of the proposal that says __________.”
• Appreciation for the author or the process, or other individuals who supported the process.
• You can use a quick-reaction round to suggest quick amendments.
• Improvements in wording.
• Small changes that are in alignment with the proposal. 

Note that amendments change the proposal

You can accept changes to the proposal before moving to consent but make sure everyone is aware of the change. Show the change visually or by re-reading the changed section. If you make too many changes in the quick reaction round, you might have to start at the beginning of the consent decision-making process (present the proposal, clarifying questions, etc.) – since you basically have a new proposal.

Your task is to avoid confusion. Confusion will turn into a loss of trust, so err on the transparent side even if that entails some redundancy.

Why are quick reactions helpful?

Hearing quick reactions is a temperature check on the group. How much support does this proposal have? Is the proposal ready to be consented to? Maybe too many people have issues with several parts of the proposal, in which case you might gather more feedback and do a rewrite before even going to objections.

On the other hand, a quick reaction round is also a wonderful way of community building. You get to hear what others think, where they are with the proposal, what it means to them, and what their concerns are, which might not rise to the level of an objection – everything that there is to say next to objections. Especially on controversial topics, it is important to ground every decision in the group and to learn more from and about each other. However, it is also important to keep statements brief and relevant since it is most effective to devote time to addressing objections. In a way, this temperature check is an investment in your shared future and coherence as a team.

Consent round

Your next step

Learn more about sociocracy overall

If you’d rather get this content by video, please visit our free 75min primer on sociocracy. Beyond consent decision making, it also covers who is even a part of the consent process and how to have meetings that work in this way.