共识决策法
维基百科，自由的百科全书
共识决策法是指一种决策过程，不仅追求参与者的多数的同意，而且还解决和减轻少数人的反对以达成最多同意的决策。共识通常被定义为以下含义: a) 普遍同意，以及 b) 达成普遍同意的过程。共识决策法因此主要关注这个过程。
该方法试图消弱派别或党派的作用，并提升个人意见的表达。通过并列不同的意见，该方法也增加了不可预测或创新方案出现的的可能性。该方法寻求最小的反对意见，因此该方法在志愿者组织中非常流行，在志愿者组织中，决策只有取得最广泛的认可，才更有希望被贯彻执行。当决策的强制执行难以实施时，就希望采用共识决策法，这样每一个参与者将被要求对决策施加影响。
相对于哪些多数派采取行动，并执行决策而没有更多的与少数投票人进行磋商的情况，少数派的意见必须更大程度的被考虑。这种方法通常被认为共识需要更多的时间和努力去达成。因此，一些团体可能保留共识决策法用于特别复杂，有风险和重要的决策。 然而，有许多团体的例子，那些团体采用共识决策法，以一种使期能够既考虑到少数派的意见，又同时及时有效地做出决策。这些例子将在共识决策法的期望一节给出。.
目录 |
[编辑] 主要原则
与其简单地列出选项，短时间的争辩，投票，然后根据一定比例的多数(比如说50%加1，或2/3)来接受或拒绝，一个共识决策的过程要包括認清與面對疑問，提出新選擇，合併不同選擇，及保證每一個人都明白各建議與論點。
这样给了更多的影响力予少数派、有反对意见但难以迅速阐述的以及缺少辩论技巧的人。因此共识决策法往往被视作草根民主的表现形式。
有些平等主義(Egalitarian)團體會試用共識方法來減少其領袖或組織者之權力。此等方法可減多數對少數或個人之任何傷害。共識方法或適用於個人或情緒風險高（ personal (or emotional) risk to members is high）、互不信任、討論時間充足 之情況。共識決策法或可修正習慣隋性、過於服從 或 疏忽等陋習。
如任何集體決定過程，共識決策亦會令不參與辯論者失去影響力，因他們不能參與修訂新提議 （但他們在討論前或曾有參與之機會）。故此，多數共識決策程序極重視參與。
定義一套共識決策過程的三種關鍵因素：
- 所要求的同意／一致程度；
- 討論的時間分配，包括急切事項與重要事項之間之分配；
- follow-up to action including the monitoring that arises from dissent, and from claims of majority proponents whose preferred course of action is being taken over minority objections.
There is also the question of facilitation or process leadership, which is handled separately at the end of this article.
[编辑] 若共識不是一致同意，誰必同意？
健康之共識決策程序往往及早鼓勵並釋放反對聲音，以盡可能收納各種小衆觀點。 反對者常濱重要角色，例如, the Vatican assigns the role of Devil's Advocate to a specific priest who argues against beatification of a saint, to ensure the case 'against' remains well represented. After the decision, the dissenting minority may have some role to play in monitoring the decision. In the Supreme Court of the United States, both the majority opinion and minority opinion are equally well documented, as the legal grounds for agreeing with either may exist in some court in future.
很多組織以為一致同意的決定代表協調、團結、一致。However, there is evidence that unanimous decisions may be a sign of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives, or plain impatience with the process of debate. When there are concerns about these aspects of unanimity, various alternatives can be pursued. These include the following:
- Unanimity minus one (or U-1), requires all delegates but one to support the decision. The individual dissenter cannot block the decision although they may be able to prolong debate (e.g. via a Filibuster_(legislative_tactic)). The dissenter may be the ongoing monitor of the implications of the decision, and their opinion of the outcome of the decision may be solicited at some future time. Betting markets in particular rely on the input of such lone dissenters. A lone bettor against the odds profits when his or her prediction of the outcomes proves to be better than that of the majority. This disciplines the market's odds.
- Unanimity minus two (or U-2), does not permit two individual delegates to block a decision, but tends to curtail debate with a lone dissenter more quickly. Dissenting pairs can present alternate views of what is wrong with the decision under consideration. By focusing on a pair of dissenters, and allocating less time to lone wolves or 'consensus thugs', a U-2 system tends to form stronger bonds among those who find themselves "alone on an island" with each other. Pairs of delegates can be empowered to find the common ground that will enable them to convince a third, decision-blocking, voter to join them. If the pair are unable to convince a third party to join them within a set time, their arguments are deemed to be unconvincing, immature or self-interested. If two people dissent against some common measure, it is more likely that the discussion between them can be extended to third parties easily, since it is already verbalized and illustrated. Western European court systems recognize this by strongly encouraging criminal defendants or civil plaintiffs to get an attorney's aid, so that their case can be fully heard out long before the decision.
- Unanimity minus three, (or U-3), and other such systems recognize the ability of three or more delegates to actively block a decision. However, there is controversy over whether a small group of dissenters, (e.g., militants or terrorists), is morally different than a large minority, (e.g., an opposition party with support of double-digit percentages of the population). Accordingly U-3 and lesser degrees of unanimity are usually lumped in with statistical measures of agreement, such as "80%, mean plus one sigma, two-thirds majority, 50% plus one" levels of agreement. Such measures do not fit within the definition of consensus given at the beginning of this article.
[编辑] 時間性
The quality of alternatives considered is, all else being equal, proportional to the amount of time spent gathering and comparing and combining them. The term deliberative democracy reflects the deliberation that underlies all good consensus decision-making. Ralph Nader and others have advocated deliberative measures to extend the time for "sober second thought."
A fictional example of deliberative democracy is the Entmoot from J. R. R. Tolkien's novel The Lord of the Rings. The Ents, who are large ancient living intelligent trees, spend days discussing the issue of whether to go to war, in their verbose and many-syllabled language. This is an example of a decision for which the stakes were high, the individual risk also high, and coercive force difficult or lacking; therefore suited to consensus methods.
Timely decisions are important. 有時錯誤的果斷決定會勝過後來而好的決定。 Key responsibilities of facilitators of any decision making process, but particularly in consensus decision-making, include:
-
- Establishing measures to place items on the agenda, or deny them time on the agenda.
- Setting deadlines for changes to the agenda (e.g. can the agenda itself be changed during the meeting?).
- Agenda forming and presentation of issues at the right time, when there is sufficient time for their debate.
- Ensuring that less urgent issues are excluded from the debate, but dealt at another time.
To achieve a balance between urgency and importance, it is common to reserve enough time for matters that are not urgent, but are nevertheless important, (for e.g., the decision process itself, which takes care to maintain). Consensus decision processes tend to accelerate as rising trust over the course of the meeting, combined with fatigue, increase individual tolerance and the cost of dissent. Placing difficult agenda items first tends to speed a meeting, with the risk that important, but less complex decisions will not be achieved before adjournment.
Decisions about when to split up into working groups, how to handle agendas, how to deal with changes to agendas or working groups from the floor, etc., are all about the allocation of the group's time to urgent versus important matters. No consensus decision process can survive without close attention to these procedural matters. Attention must also be given to dealing with issues of safety, fairness, and closure that arise from their application in practice.
[编辑] 行動、監察與後繼
行动是决策的关键之处，如果没有行动，只会是空谈。自亞歷山大大帝以降，軍事領袖經常強調：若司令不親自督促，則命令不會被切實執行。同理亦適用於集體決定－或更甚。
Obviously, the opposing minority is not going to do a good job ensuring that a measure is carried out, although they can ensure that problems that arise from it are well-documented, and that inconveniences of its implementation are contained. However, they can also take steps to ensure that the inconvenience of implementation is maximized, so as to make the point that the measure was impractical and ill-advised from the beginning. A major issue in consensus decisions is whose view of the actual outcome to trust, and who to permit time to present their view.
Consensus decisions are especially vulnerable to sabotage of all kinds, so the assignment of action roles, monitoring (from the original majority and minority opinion to some future time when the results of both sets of predictions can be debated), and other followup (e.g. assessing support of the public for a party after it has taken and publicized a particular measure), is a key responsibility of consensus decision leaders.
[编辑] 領袖
Aside from these abstract factors, one must consider the practical matter of the facilitation process. A hierarchical point of view is that leadership or management of the process (as opposed to leadership of a faction or party) is required.
The role of a 引導員(en:facilitator) in a consensus decision-making process can be much more difficult than that of a simple-majority-party leader if group members distrust each other or unconsciously use manipulative techniques. For a proponent of any given alternative, reducing objections to their plan by eliciting information or preferences from proponents of other alternatives is difficult if people distrust each other; maniuplative opponents will find it advantageous to misrepresent their concerns or refuse to negotiate. For these reasons, consensus processes usually require trust among participants and skilled, patient facilitators able to synthesise the state of a proposal.
An argument against consensus decision is that few motivated facilitators are willing to assign themselves a role guiding processes rather than pursuing and promoting specific measures empowering themselves. As Dee Hock described his role at Visa International, an organisation focussed on profit-making, it was something that anyone could do, but almost no one learnt to do well, and which was largely thankless. Similar sentiments have been echoed by many "leaders" of organizations committed to peace, ecology, and social justice, which tend to have diffuse benefits, and concentrated costs (the opposite of the factors leading to a tragedy of the commons, a key issue in political economy).
However, leaderless organisations committed to peace, ecology, and social justice, where trust builds up and where different participants are encouraged to learn facilitation skills, find that consensus decision making is a practical and powerful tool. An example of a prominent organization that uses consensus decision making is the Green Party.
Some organizations have abandoned consensus decision-making for simple majority, judging that the difficulty of building a process to formally weigh all of these factors is not worth it, and that these factors can be handled better informally (i.e. in offline discussions before and after debate) than through the process of consensus itself, at the risk of creating a de facto 聯盟(en:clique) that makes the real decisions.
Before considering any consensus decision-making process, a group would be wise to consider the feasibility of building up sufficient trust among participants and the willingness of participants to learn facilitation skills, and whether or not these are compatible with the operational structure of the organisation. For example, an organisation with a President who hierarchically controls operations could only be compatible with consensus decision-making if the President sincerely respected the consensus decision-making process.
It would also be intrinsically difficult for a competitive organisation to use consensus decision-making, since consensus is a cooperative process, not a competitive process.
[编辑] 批评
关于共识决策法有很多批评，一个批评是共识决策法会导致一种情况，相对少得人（一个派别）可以阻止大多数人渴望的行动（参见少数主义）。另一个批评是会有很多存在两极化的决策不可能达成共识。在这些情况下，一个团体或组织会相持不下，落入僵局。 Charismatic leaders may persuade group members to go along with them, and, if allowed to continue, may thus, in time, remove the volition of individual group members. 共识决策法也被批评它允许决策的责任散布到团队成员中，使得没有人为决策的后果负责。此外，共识决策法也可能很慢。
共识决策法也会导致一些病态的团体动力学。比如，人们会不愿意表达不同意见以免打破共识。这会导致一种团体迷思的情形，团体里的每一个成员详细一个策略有缺点，但是没有人愿意表达这个想法，因为他们的误以为团体中的其他每一个人都支持这个策略。
[编辑] 共识决策法的期望
近年来共识决策法取得了可观的发展。比如说基于贵格会的共识被应用于许多不同的背景。此外，不同的共同社区（intentional communities）也发展出了一些既综合又有效的过程。共识决策法的两个方法如下面长街所述：
[编辑] 基于贵格会的共识
The model used by the 贵格会员 is effective because it puts in place a simple structure that moves a group towards consensus. The Quaker model works well when employed in secular settings because it gives everyone a chance to speak while limiting potential disruptors (e.g., people who want unlimited airtime, or who have a particular axe to grind).
贵格会员模型的下列方面可以被有效地应用到任何共识决策的过程中：
- Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.
- 包括积极倾听和共享信息的讨论。
- Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.
- 想法和方案属于团体，不记录名字。
- 通过讨论解决异议，促进者识别出达成一致的部分，和存在异议的部分，以便推动讨论的深入。*The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a minute of the decision.
- 团体作为一个整体为决策负责，决策属于团体。
- The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.
- Dissenters' perspectives are embraced.
A belief in common humanity and the ability to decide together are key components of Quaker-based consensus. The goal is unity, not unanimity. Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator serves the group rather than acting as person-in charge. By articulating the emerging consensus, members can be clear on the decision, and, as their views have been taken into account, will be likely to support it (see External links, below for more information and materials related to Quaker-based consensus).
[编辑] 使用彩色卡片
一些共同社区也使用共识决策法取得了好的效果。在en:cohousing团体中，很多情况下，事务必须在时间约束下办理。因此效率是很重要的。如果团体真诚地希望通过共识进行决策，就需要一种有效的办法。一个开放的讨论需要在一个过程的推动下进行，这个过程很快地合理地向前进展，决策得到所有人的支持。 可以满足这样要求的具有独创性的方法被开发出来，一种方法就是引入了彩色卡片（绿，黄，红）的使用。
在一些团体中，卡片有两种用法，一种是在讨论时用，另一种是在决策时用：
[编辑] 讨论时用
希望发言的团体成员举起一张卡片：
- 绿色卡片意味着“我有话要说”或“我有问题” 。 当多名团体成员举起绿色卡片，他们被安排按着顺序等待发言。每一个人依次发言，以与贵格-based 共识类似的方法。
- 黄色卡片意味着“我可以澄清”或“我需要澄清（对刚才所说的）”。
- 红色卡片是过程卡。当红色卡片被举起时，要求成员关注一下过程。比如说，一个举起红色卡片的人会说：“我们是不是偏离了议题？”或者“我们争论这个的目的是什么？”，甚至是“我们休息一下如何?” 红色卡片给与所有成员一个称为促进者的平等机会。
[编辑] 决策时用
讨论过后，促进者清楚地说明提议并要求大家举起卡片：
- 绿色的意味着：“我同意”
- 黄色的意味着：“我可以接受”
- 红色的意味着：“我不同意，但我会考虑所有团体成员的发言，努力来寻找一个更好的方法”。这样，举起红牌并不会阻塞过程，这意味着举红牌的人将要与其他人在质疑的事情上一同工作，并把它带回后续的讨论。这样往往能够保证红牌不会被轻易使用。
如果团队同意采纳类似这样的方法，并且所有的团队成员都愿意用这种方法讨论和决策，共识决策法可以即能够有效地满足团体的目标，同时具有时间效率。
[编辑] 参见
- 平均法则
- 共识民主
- 精英主义
[编辑] 参考文献
- 狄伊·哈克(Dee Hock), "浑序原则（The Chaordic Principle）" 注：浑序（Chaordic）是浑沌（Chaos）秩序（Order）的组合，意为乱中取序，序中求变）
[编辑] 外部链接
- The Collective Book
- Consensus as a communication method, not a principle
- Consensus Decision Making (Seeds for Change)
- Consensus method to overcome male dominance
- Formal Consensus - General (Food Not Bombs)
- Formal Consensus - Specific Methods (FNB)
- Formal Consensus - PDF Format
- Making Sense of Consensus - ACTivist Magazine
- Manual for Meetings in the Uniting Church in Australia (pdf 235k)
- Starhawk, also "Consensus is not Unanimity"
- Sociocracy
