---
title: Effective decisions with consensus
date: 2018-01-14
tags: [discussion]
description: I often sit in ineffective meetings. I am bored and annoyed. I am not bored and annoyed because it is a meetings or because it takes a lot of time. I am bored and annoyed because it is ineffective.
---

I often sit in ineffective meetings. I am bored and annoyed. I am not bored and
annoyed because it is a meetings or because it takes a lot of time. I am bored
and annoyed because it is ineffective.

There are meetings that are not ineffective. I have been in some. Those were
the ones where everyone involved knew some rules. These rules are not black
magic, but they are also not all that easy to explain. Still, I will try:

## Value the social aspects

A meeting of the kind I am talking about mainly exists to make decisions. But
it is also one of the rare occasions where your team comes together. It is a
*social event*.

Generally, a team works better if the people know each other and have similar
goals. This is called
[cohesion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohesion_(social_policy)). A meeting
is a great opportunity to build cohesion.

If you think about effectiveness, you probably think about "How can we get to a
decision as fast as possible?" But I think you should allow yourself to get
side-tracked sometimes. Get to know each other and grow as a team. This will
greatly improve things in the long run.

## Stick to the topic

This one is obvious and I will not waste too much time with it: Contrary to what
I said before, you should of course always try to stick to the topic.

## Decide by consensus

Before I had experience with consensus-based decisions, I thought it was a
grossly ineffective method. It turns out the exact opposite is true. The
reasons for that are not actually that obscure:

-	If everyone agrees on the decision, you do not need to enforce it. You will
	also not have to talk about it again and again.
-	If you engage with minority opinions, there is less partisanship.
-	The process is actually simpler: You do not need to count votes. You just
	need to ask if anyone disagrees.

So how does this work in practice?

At first you have an open discussion. People bring forward what they think are
relevant arguments on the topic. Once someone has the feeling that there is an
option that everyone can agree on they spell out that option. If no one
disagrees you have a decision.

Simple as that.

A more detailed description of the process can be found in
[RFC7282](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282).

## Be aware of common fallacies

The biggest issue with consensus-based decisions is that they are susceptible
to social forces. You should be very critical of your position in the team. If
you are seen as a leader, empower others. If you have more knowledge, share it.
If you are not sure yourself, say so.  This allows others to confidently voice
their opinions and contribute to a better decision.

Another big issue is that people talk too much without advancing the topic.
Always think before you talk: "Is this really a valuable contribution to the
discussion?" Be especially aware of
[bikeshedding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikeshedding).

On the other end of the spectrum, some people are quiet and do not talk much in
meetings. It is important to involve them in the discussion, for example by
doing a flashlight round.

If it is hard to come to a conclusion, talk about the option to *not* make a
decision, i.e. leave everything as it currently is. Maybe this is the option
you all can agree on. Or maybe it is bad enough for everyone to compromise on
something else.

## Just do it

I honestly believe that if you follow these few rules you will have great
meetings. Of course, this requires that everyone involved knows about them.
Also, give yourself some time to grow as a team.

On a wider scope, I think these rules should be taught in school (instead of
these awful debate clubs). We waste too much time sitting through ineffective
meetings, making bad decisions. There are important things to do. This has to
stop.