Bez kategorii

A General Agreement or Opinion a Majority Opinion

Japanese companies usually use a consensus decision, 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] Consensus decision-making is an alternative to the usual decision-making processes in groups. [4] Robert`s Rules of Procedure, for example, are a guide used by many organizations. This book makes it possible to structure the debate and to adopt proposals by majority. It does not emphasize the goal of a comprehensive agreement. Critics of such a process believe that it may involve adversarial debate and the formation of competing factions. This dynamic can damage relations between group members and impair a group`s ability to implement a contested decision in cooperation. Consensual decisions attempt to address the beliefs of these problems.

Proponents argue that the results of the consensus process are as follows:[2][5] A tradition in support of broad consensus is the tradition of humming, not raising one`s hand (countable); This allows a group to quickly recognize the prevalence of dissent without it being easy to slip into majority rule. [68] Unanimity is achieved when the entire group appears to accept a decision. It has drawbacks in that other disagreements, improvements or better ideas remain hidden, but the debate is effectively closed and postponed to an implementation phase. Some consider unanimity to be a form of groupthink, and some experts suggest „coding systems.” zur Erkennung der Illusion des Einstimmigkeitsymptoms”. [42] In Consensus is not One unanimously, Starhawk, a consensus practitioner and activist leader, wrote: The term consensus opinion, which is actually not redundant (see Sinn 1a; the meaning that adopts the sentence is slightly older), has been so often referred to as redundancy that many authors avoid it. You`re sure to use consensus alone when it`s clear that you mean consensus of opinion, and most authors actually do. Consensus is a general consensus and occurs when most or all of a group of people believe the same thing about something. If you are looking for a consensus to make the best decision, look for a decision that a majority agrees with and use the majority`s opinion as a guide for your own decision. If you rely on other people for your opinions and use consensus even though your own thoughts would otherwise be valid, you can: The consensus of opinion before the committee is that there is a lack of spiritual values in the community. In other words, the 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. Since consensus decision-making is focused on discussion and gathers feedback from all stakeholders, this can be time-consuming. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions need to be made quickly or where it is not possible to obtain the opinion of all delegates within a reasonable period of time.

In addition, the time required to participate in the decision-making process by consensus can sometimes be a barrier to the participation of those who are unable or unwilling to make the commitment. [50] However, once a decision has been made, it can be reacted to more quickly than to a decision made. American businessmen complained that in negotiations with a Japanese company, they had to discuss the idea with everyone, even the janitor, but once a decision was made, the Americans found that the Japanese could act much faster because everyone was on board, while the Americans struggled against internal resistance. [51] Some proponents of consensus would argue that a majority decision reduces each decision-maker`s commitment 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. It was the consensus of opinion that the only thing stopping him from swimming was his curls. Outside of Western culture, several other cultures have made consensual decisions. 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. The resulting agreements must be followed and range from advice and warnings to compensation and exile. [56] [57] Many people think that consensus is simply an extended 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] 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] Making decisions, even if they are not very important, can be intimidating. Recognizing that you`ve made a decision that`s wrong, or even a decision that`s not the best, isn`t a great feeling. To avoid this, many people seek someone else`s opinion and seek consensus before making a decision. Consensus is not synonymous with „unanimity” – although this can be an agreed rule in a decision-making process. The degree of agreement required to make a decision is called the „decision rule.” [2] [6] The main danger of blacks lies in an evil consensus of opinion about it. 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”). Some proponents of consensus decision consider that procedures that use majority rule are 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] If you feel like you can`t stop relying on the opinions of others to make decisions, or if you feel frozen when asked what you think of something, it may be helpful to talk to a therapist.

.