Both temporary and permanent groups and organizations are likely to encounter certain predictable obstacles to consensus building. It is important that both groups handle these obstacles with great care.

Respond To Disruptive Behavior

If a participant or an observer of a consensus building process acts in a disruptive manner, the facilitator, mediator, or chair -- whoever is managing the meeting -- should remind that individual of the procedural ground rules they signed. If that does not result in the desired change in their behavior, they should ask the participants with the closest ties to the disruptive party to intercede on behalf of the group. If that, too, fails to deter the disruptive individual, it may make sense to adjourn the meeting temporarily and allow the group as a whole to convince the disruptive person to either alter his or her behavior or leave. If that fails as well, participants should not be afraid to contact the relevant civil authorities and ask for assistance in removing the individual involved.

Accept An Advisory Role if that is All that is Allowed

In many instances, both in the public arena and inside private organizations, consensus building groups are often granted only advisory, not decision-making, power. Formal decision-making may still reside with elected or appointed officials or officers. This need not diminish the contribution that a consensus building effort can make. From the standpoint of a decision-maker, it is always helpful to know which options or packages are likely to have the full support of all the relevant stakeholders. Moreover, if those with decision-making authority are involved in a consensus building effort -- or, at last, kept apprised of its progress -- they may feel sufficiently comfortable with the result to endorse it.

Clarify the Presumed Liability of the Participants

If the participants in a consensus building process are dealing with confidential or proprietary information that could create legal liability, the scope of this liability should be stated in the invitation to participate extended by the convenor, and be explained in the ground rules governing the group's operations.

Clarify Confidentiality Arrangements

There are legitimate reasons for consensus building processes, however public they may be, to adopt confidentiality arrangements. Both the arrangements and the rationale for adopting them should be spelled out in the group's ground rules. These arrangements must take account of open meeting and sunshine laws if public officials are involved.

Clarify Legal Obligations if the Participants are Simultaneously Involved in Pending Litigation

If a consensus building effort is meant to resolve issues that are simultaneously the subject of litigation, the participants in the informal dialogue should be apprised (by counsel) of their legal rights and the impact that informal consensus building conversations might have on the legal proceedings, and vice versa. They should also approach the judge or adjucation body to talk about the best way of coordinating the two processes.

Clarify the Extent to Which Precedents Are or Are Not Being Set

One of the reasons people engage in consensus building efforts is to formulate tailored solutions to whatever problem, issue or dispute they face. It is important that the participants in these processes feel free to generate plans or solutions that fit their unique circumstances. If everyone agrees that no precedent will be set, it is usually easier to convince reluctant groups or organizations to participate. Moreover, this allows future consensus building processes to proceed unimpeded.