On the other hand, Method 3 is more suitable for a private family business, where all decisions must first seek the authorization of the managers, or at least the majority agreement of the committee`s board of directors. Consensus decision-making or consensus policy (often abbreviated to consensus) refers to group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim or requirement of acceptance by all. The emphasis on avoiding negative opinions distinguishes consensus from unanimity, which requires all participants to positively support a decision. Consensus comes from Latin and means “agreement, agreement”, which in turn comes from consent, which means “to feel together”. [1] The process and outcome of the consensus decision is called consensus (p.B. “by consensus” or “consensus”). One tradition to support approximate consensus is the tradition of buzzing and not (countable) hand lifting; This allows a group to quickly recognize the prevalence of dissent without it being easy to slip into majority rule. [68] Japanese companies generally make consensual decisions, which means that for each decision, the board of directors seeks unanimous support. [65] A ringi-sho is a circulating document used to reach an agreement. It must first be signed by the manager at the lowest level, then upwards and may need to be reviewed and the process started again. [66] Some proponents of consensus decision consider majority rule procedures to be undesirable for several reasons. Majority decisions are seen as competitive rather than cooperative, shaping decision-making in a win/lose dichotomy that ignores the possibility of compromise or other mutually beneficial solutions.
[43] Carlos Santiago Nino, on the other hand, argued that majority rule leads to better counseling practice than alternatives, as it requires each member of the group to make arguments that please at least half of the participants. [44] A. Lijphart comes to the same conclusion about majority government, noting that majority rule favours coalition formation. [45] Moreover, opponents of majority rule argue that it can lead to a “tyranny of the majority,” a scenario in which a majority places its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group that it constitutes active oppression. However, some electoral theorists argue that majority rule can actually prevent the tyranny of the majority, in part because it maximizes a minority`s potential to form a coalition that can overturn an unsatisfactory decision. [45] Quaker-based consensus[19] is said to be effective because it introduces a simple and proven structure that pushes a group toward unity. The Quaker model is designed to allow individual voices to be heard while providing a mechanism for dealing with disagreements. [5] [20] [21] All attempts to reach consensus begin with a good faith attempt to obtain full consent, regardless of the threshold of the decision rule. Some proponents of consensus would argue that a majority vote reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision. Members of a minority position may feel less attached to a majority vote, and even majority voters who have taken their positions along party or bloc lines may have a reduced sense of responsibility for the final decision. The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus advocates, may be a lesser willingness to defend or respond to the decision. Such an agreement must comply with clauses 11.5 (facilitation by majority agreement) and 11.6 (additional safeguards).
A “simple majority” or “majority” is defined as greater than 50% and “super majority” is defined as a percentage determined by the members that is greater than the simple majority. You may be wondering, “Well, why are these numbers important? They are important because these terms are usually associated with the ability of LLC members to vote and make decisions. The authors believe that although the declaration resulted in majority agreement, the message is mixed and unclear enough and more research will be needed. Another method of promoting the deal is to use a voting process where all members of the group have a strategic incentive to accept rather than block. [34] However, it is very difficult to see the difference between those who support the decision and those who only tolerate it tactically for incitement. Once they have received this incentive, they can undermine or reject the implementation of the agreement in various non-obvious ways. In general, electoral systems avoid offering incentives (or “bribes”) to change a sincere vote. Many people think that consensus is simply an advanced voting method where everyone has to vote in the same way. Since such unanimity rarely occurs in groups with more than one member, groups trying to use this type of procedure are usually extremely frustrated or compulsive. Either decisions are never made (which leads to the disappearance of the group, its transformation into a social group that does not perform tasks), they are made secretly, or one group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority dominates, sometimes a minority, sometimes an individual who uses “the bloc”. But no matter how it is done, it is NOT a consensus.
[40] Confusion between unanimity and consensus usually leads to the failure of consensual decisions, and the group then returns to majority or super-majority rule or dissolves. In his book on Wikipedia, Joseph Reagle examines the merits and challenges of consensus in open and online communities. [38] Randy Schutt,[39] Starhawk,[40] and other direct action practitioners focus on the dangers of an apparent agreement, followed by actions in which group divisions become dangerously apparent. To ensure that the approval or approval of all participants is appreciated, many groups choose unanimity or near-unanimity as the decision-making rule. Groups that require unanimity give individual participants the option to block a group decision. This provision motivates a group to ensure that all members of the group accept each new proposal before it is adopted. However, proper guidelines for the use of this option are important. The ethics of consensus decision-making encourage participants to place the well-being of the entire group above their own individual preferences.
If there is a risk of blocking a group decision, the group and the dissidents in the group are encouraged to work together until an agreement can be reached. The simple veto against a decision is not considered a responsible use of consensual locks. Some common guidelines for the use of consensus locks are:[2][7] Outside of Western culture, several other cultures have used consensus decision-making. An early example is the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) of the Confederacy, which used a super-majority of 75% to finalize its decisions,[52] perhaps as early as 1142. [53] In the Xulu and Xhosa (South African) processes, community leaders come together to listen to the public and negotiate figurative thresholds for an acceptable compromise. The technology was also used at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2015. [54] [55] In the Cultures of Aceh and Nias (Indonesian), family and regional conflicts, from playground struggles to legacies, are addressed through a Musyawarah consensus-building process in which the parties mediate to find peace and avoid future hostility and revenge. . .
.