Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:00:01.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - What Is Consensus and How Is It Achieved in Meetings?

Four Types of Consensus Decision Making

from Tools and Models for Promoting Meeting Success

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2015

By
Christoph Haug
Edited by
Joseph A. Allen ,
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock  and
Steven G. Rogelberg
Joseph A. Allen
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Steven G. Rogelberg
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Get access

Summary

Abstract

This chapter makes three central claims: first, that the term “consensus” has been used to identify two different phenomena, mental consensus and interactional consensus; second, that unanimity (everyone agrees) and consensus (no one disagrees) are two distinct modes of collective decision-making; and third, that consensus is a mode of decision making that can be practiced in different ways, thus making it necessary to distinguish among four types of consensus when analyzing (and practicing) consensus decision making: imposed consensus, acclaimed consensus, basic consensus, and deliberative consensus. These types of consensus vary in their degree of openness toward dissenting voices.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 556 - 584
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvesson, M. (1996). Communication, power and organization. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angouri, J. (2012). Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1565–1579. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angouri, J., & Locher, M. A. (2012). Theorising disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1549–1553. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arminen, I. (2005). Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Directions in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk, 27, 273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J. (2006). Masking disagreement among experts. Episteme, 3, 52–67. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1–2.52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J., & Moore, A. (2010). Should we aim for consensus? Episteme, 7, 198–214. doi:10.3366/E1742360010000948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Bohlin, I. (2009). Konsensusmetoder inom hälso- och sjukvård: En kunskapsöversikt [The consensus method in the health and nursing industry: A review]. Stockholm, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting. Retrieved from http://webbutik.skl.se/bilder/artiklar/pdf/7164-486-2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1973). L'opinion publique n'existe pas. Les Temps modernes, 318, 1292–1309.Google Scholar
Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (1997). Perceptions of strategic priorities, consensus and firm performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 241–258. doi:10.1111/1467–6486.00050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, J. (2009). Beyond taxonomies of influence: “Doing” influence and making decisions in management team meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 57–79. doi:10.1177/0021943608325749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2011). The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34, 115–128. doi:10.1007/s10746–011–9187–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dess, G. G., & Keats, B. W. (1987). Environmental assessment and organizational performance: An exploratory field study. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1987(1), 21–25. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1987.17533681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeStephen, R., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Small group consensus: Stability of group support of the decision, task process, and group relationships. Small Group Research, 19, 227–239. doi:10.1177/104649648801900204Google Scholar
Domke, C. (2006). Besprechungen als organisationale Entscheidungskommunikation [Meetings as organizational decision-making communication]. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242. doi:10.1080/03637758409390197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Hakim, S. (1978). The structure and dynamics of consensus decision-making. Man, 13, 55–71. doi:10.2307/2801065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E. (2008). Women speaking up: Getting and using turns in workplace meetings. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups: Participation, decision making, and communication. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publications.Google Scholar
Gelderloos, P. (2006). Consensus: A new handbook for grassroots social, political, and environmental groups. Tucson, AZ: Sharp.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. R. (2008). How the outside gets in: Modeling conversational permeation. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 359–384. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, D. R. (2012). Talk at the brink: Deliberation and decision during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1987). Modelling collective belief. Synthese, 73, 185–204. doi:10.1007/BF00485446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2010). Intersubjectivity: Towards a dialogical analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40, 19–46. doi:10.1111/j.1468–5914.2009.00419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graeber, D. (2009). Direct action: An ethnography. Oakland, CA: AK Press.Google Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2009). Hospitalk: Politeness and hierarchical structures in interdisciplinary discharge rounds. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(1), 11–31. doi:10.1515/JPLR.2009.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, J. B. (1974). The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics, 3, 63–80. doi:10.1016/0090–2616(74)90005–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, C. (2010). Discursive decision-making in meetings of the global justice movements. Cultures and practices (Doctoral dissertation). Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Haug, C. (2013a). Consensus decision-making in meetings as an interactive accomplishment: Silence without silencing? Paper presented at the 29th EGOS Colloquium, 4–6 July 2013, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Haug, C. (2013b). Meetings. In Snow, D. A., della Porta, D., Klandermans, B., & McAdam, D. (Eds.). The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of social and political movements (pp. 739–742). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Haug, C. (2013c). Organizing spaces: Meeting arenas as a social movement infrastructure between organization, network, and institution. Organization Studies, 34, 705–732. doi:10.1177/0170840613479232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, C. (2014, June). Unorganized decisions: The significance of consensus in organizing. Paper presented at the workshop, Partial Organization Stockholm Centre for Organizational Research (SCORE), Sweden.Google Scholar
Hendry, J., & Seidl, D. (2003). The structure and significance of strategic episodes: Social systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 175–196. doi:10.1111/1467–6486.00008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, S. (1992). Surveys in the public sphere: Applying Bourdieu's critique of opinion polls. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4, 220–229. doi:10.1093/ijpor/4.3.220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In Psathas, G. (Ed.), Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York, NY: Irvington.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work: Constructing gender identity through workplace discourse. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2007). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1987). Establishing agreement. An analysis of proposal-acceptance sequences (Doctoral dissertation). Foris, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huisman, M. (2001). Decision-making in meetings as talk-in-interaction. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascos. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2013). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Kangasharju, H. (2002). Alignment in disagreement: Forming oppositional alliances in committee meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1447. doi:10.1016/S0378–2166(02)00073–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2005). The lack of consensus about strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. Journal of Management, 31, 719–737. doi:10.1177/0149206305279114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal,20, 445–465. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097–0266(199905)20:5<445::AID-SMJ27>3.0.CO;2-V3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, T., Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2012). The meeting genre across cultures: Insights from three German-American collaborations. Small Group Research, 43, 159–185. doi:10.1177/1046496411429600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, D. K. (1998). “Why just go for 51%?” Organizational structure in the religious society of friends (CRSO Working Paper No. 567). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Research on Social Organization. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/51331.Google Scholar
Leach, D. K. (2009). An elusive ‘we’: Anti-dogmatism, democratic practice, and the contradictory identity of the German Autonomen. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1042–1068. doi:10.1177/0002764208327674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeckelbergh, M. (2009). The will of the many: How the alterglobalisation movement is changing the face of democracy. London, UK: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Markóczy, L. (2001). Consensus formation during strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1013–1031. doi: 10.1002/smj.193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marra, M. (2012). Disagreeing without being disagreeable: Negotiating workplace communities as an outsider. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1580–1590. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, C. (2002). Arbeitsbesprechungen: Interaktionsstruktur, Interationsdynamik und Konsequenzen einer sozialen Form (2nd ed.). Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung Retrieved from http://www.verlag-gespraechsforschung.de/2002/pdf/arbeitsbesprechungen.pdf (Original work published 1997)Google Scholar
Moore, A., & O'Doherty, K. (2014). Deliberative voting: Clarifying consent in a consensus process: Deliberative voting. Journal of Political Philosophy, 22, 302–319. doi:10.1111/jopp.12028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology, and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. K., Black, N. A., Lamping, D. L., Mckee, C. M., Sanderson, C. F., Ashkam, J., & Marteau, T. (1998). Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development: A review. Health Technology Assessment, 2. doi:10.3310/hta2030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, F. R. (1986). Reflections on a meeting: Structure, language, and the polity in a small-scale society. American Ethnologist, 13, 430–447. doi:10.1525/ae.1986.13.3.02a00020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomb, T. M. (1959). The study of consensus. In Merton, R. K., Broom, L., & Cottrell, S. L. Jr. (Eds.), Sociology today: Problems and prospects (pp. 277–292). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Novak, S. (2013). The silence of ministers: Consensus and blame avoidance in the Council of the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51, 1091–1107. doi:10.1111/jcms.12063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nullmeier, F., & Pritzlaff, T. (2009). The implicit normativity of political practices: Analyzing the dynamics and power relations of committee decision-making. Critical Policy Studies, 3, 357–374. doi:10.1080/19460171003619758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nullmeier, F., Pritzlaff, T., Weihe, A. C., & Baumgarten, B. (2008). Entscheiden in Gremien: Von der Videoaufzeichnung zur Prozessanalyse [Decision making in committees: From video recordings to process analysis]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Owens, D. A., & Sutton, R. I. (2001). Status contests in meetings: Negotiating the informal order. In Turner, M. E (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 299–316). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pritzlaff, T. (2006). Entscheiden als Handeln: Eine begriffliche Rekonstruktion [Decision making as acting: A conceptual reconstructiom]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.Google Scholar
Pritzlaff, T. (2007). Erfahrung und gemeinsames Urteilen. In Brodocz, A. (Ed.). Erfahrung als Argument. Zur Renaissance eines ideengeschichtlichen Grundbegriffs (pp. 57–71). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (1987). The interaction order sui generis: Goffman's contribution to social theory. Sociological Theory, 5, 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renz, M. A. (2006). The meaning of consensus and blocking for cohousing groups. Small Group Research, 37, 351–376. doi:10.1177/1046496406291184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, H. M., Robert, S. C., Robert, H. M., III, Evans, W. J., Honeman, D. H., & Balch, T. J. (2000). Robert's rules of order (Rev. 10th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Da Capo.Google Scholar
Rogelberg, S. G., Shanock, L. R., & Scott, C. W. (2012). Wasted time and money in meetings: Increasing return on investment. Small Group Research, 43, 236–245. doi:10.1177/1046496411429170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, J., & Leach, D. K. (2007). Avoid, talk, or fight: Alternative cultural strategies in the battle against oligarchy in collectivist-democratic organizations. In Cnaan, R. A & Milofsky, C. (Eds.), Handbook of community movements and local organizations (pp. 346–361). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Scheff, T. J. (1967). Toward a sociological model of consensus. American Sociological Review, 32, 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, H. B. (1989). The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities. New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, R. H. (2002). In the shadow of law or power? Consensus-based bargaining and outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization, 56, 339–374. doi:10.1162/002081802320005504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, J., & Dorff, R. H. (1980). Decision by interpretation: A new concept of an often overlooked decision-mode. British Journal of Political Science, 10, 1–13. doi:10.1017/S0007123400001988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2012). Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies, 14, 779–803. doi:10.1177/1461445612456654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urfalino, P. (2007). La décision par consensus apparent: Nature et propriétés [Characteristics of decision making by apparent consensus]. Revue européenne des sciences sociales, 45, 47–70. doi:10.4000/ress.86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urfalino, P. (2010). Deciding as bringing deliberation to a close. Social Science Information, 49, 111–140. doi:10.1177/0539018409354812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urfalino, P. (2012). Reasons and preferences in medicine evaluation committees. In Landemore, H & Elster, J. (Eds.), Collective wisdom: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 173–203). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urfalino, P. (2014). The rule of non-opposition: Opening up decision-making by consensus. Journal of Political Philosophy, 22, 320–341. doi:10.1111/jopp.12037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasson, C. (2000). Caution and consensus in American business meetings. Pragmatics, 10, 457–481.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (2013). Analyzing meetings in political and business contexts: Different genres – similar strategies. In Cap, P & Okulska, U. (Eds.). Analyzing genres in political communication. Theory and practice (pp. 187–221). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yngvesson, B. (1978). Leadership and consensus: Decision-making in an egalitarian community. Ethnos, 43, 73–90. doi: 10.1080/00141844.1978.9981148CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×