When making a decision, it is important to know the differences between consensus and consent. This will help you reach a good decision faster and more cost-effectively!
The individual preference spectrum
This diagram of a person’s preference spectrum shows how the terms acceptance/approval vs. tolerance/resistance relate to each other. The preference spectrum shows the extent of preference with regard to various aspects (e.g. spatial, temporal, monetary, etc.).
At the core is the absolute favorite alternative that perfectly combines all aspects. Within the acceptance range(consensus), the approval for all other options continues to decrease until the point is reached at which an alternative is just acceptable. This point is called the acceptance threshold. It is the point at which those involved find the alternative to be evaluated “not good, not bad” or “not effective with regard to the problem”. According to Günther Drosdowski, “acceptance” means something like accepting, consenting or acquiescing. He adds an active component to the word, while tolerance is interpreted more as passive acquiescence.”[Wikipedia2023-1] If the acceptance limit is exceeded, further alternatives are only tolerated. Within the tolerance range(consent), resistance builds up and increases until the point is finally reached where the alternative is no longer tolerable. At this point, the person raises a “serious objection” and vetoes the alternative.
Joint decision means agreement
In the following, we will see how this behaves for two people who evaluate the solution space (the rectangle) in the decision-making process.
No agreement is possible here: the solution space only contains alternatives that are not tolerated by both people at the same time. There are individual alternatives that are still considered tolerable by one person, but not by both at the same time. Each person will veto the alternative that the other can just about tolerate.
Both can now “put up with it”, “come to terms with it”. The solution space lies completely or largely within their respective tolerance ranges, but neither really likes it. The famous “lowest common denominator“, or basic consensus, lies where both tolerance ranges meet.
Now there is already support (acceptance) for individual alternatives. Everyone has identified alternatives that they like. The common denominator of tolerance remains. We call it high consensusT.
Now the areas of acceptance overlap, i.e. there are alternatives that all participants agree on. A (slight) consensus emerges: the basic consensus. This is the prerequisite for jointly intrinsically motivated projects.
Now the solution space is almost completely within the acceptance range of both people at the same time; the absolute preferences are close together. This is called “(overwhelming) agreement” or high consensus – this is the ideal that people always strive for. And it should have become clear why this is usually illusory – even with two people…
Mapping to the methods of ask DAD
The individual decisions
The “operative individual decision (oE)” method often does not even strive for consensus.
We make hundreds of decisions every day and it would be a miracle if every other person expressed their approval for the alternatives we have chosen. Otherwise there would only be one lunch dish for everyone on the same day! In reality, however, there will always be many people who find my lunch intolerable, e.g. purely physically due to food allergies. But this is also the great advantage of the individual operational decision (oE): I determine the solution space solely through my personal tolerance range and choose the alternative that comes closest to my preference. This does not necessarily have to be easy, as it depends on the decision object. This decision-making method is not the focus of ask DAD. You can find out more about the various methods within the framework of classical decision theory here.
If the individual makes a decision, but the framework condition is that they must have consulted everyone who is affected by their decision and everyone who is familiar with the decision object beforehand, then this corresponds to the so-called “consultative individual decision (cD)”. It became known through the book “Reinventing Organizations” by Frederic Laloux [Laloux2015] and is the standard method for operational decisions in organizational models based on the Teal concept. DAD calls it the “consultative individual decision (kE)”. This procedure aims to achieve a basic consent as the tolerance ranges of the persons consulted are usually taken into account. However, it is not uncommon for this to be disregarded. If you want to use this procedure with our Module 2, you should definitely and explicitly point this out when you initiate the decision. For example, with this note “I would like your opinion on the topic, but I reserve the right to decide otherwise.” in the description. You can find out more here:
The group decisions
In group decisions, at least a basic consent is expected and even more is sought. Everyone involved in the decision is heard and can usually raise their (serious) objections.
However, in the “operative group decision (oG)”, it is accepted that the decision lies outside the tolerance range of individuals. The aim here is therefore basic consent.
This can even happen in a “consultative group decision (kG)”, but the requirement is at least a high level of consent, or even better a basic consensus. This also depends on the specific evaluation procedure (see also voting procedure). But even apart from the chosen procedure, it remains the same: The more people are involved, the more likely it is that someone will not actually want to tolerate the chosen alternative. And since the aim of the kG is to prevent this from happening, evaluation procedures can also be chosen that allow a single veto to prevent an alternative.
This is one of the distinguishing features between kG and oG.
And in the “Unified Decision (EE)”, this point is mandatory. The aim here is always to achieve a high level of consensus. In the true sense of the word, this is no longer about a decision in which alternatives are evaluated and all “inferior” ones are cut/sorted out, but instead deliberation continues until an alternative is found that is acceptable to everyone. It is therefore clear that this is the most lengthy and complex procedure and is generally only used for particularly important, critical decisions.
References
- [Laloux2015] Laloux, Frederic: “Reinventing Organizations”, Vahlen, 2015, ISBN 978-3-8006-4913-6
- [Wikipedia2023-1] Wikipedia: “Acceptance”, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akzeptanz, accessed June 2023