If you have not done so already, it will be helpful to review the process for helping ad hoc groups reach an agreement. The same five consensus building steps apply when dealing with permanent groups, although there is a sixth step -- organizational learning -- that needs to be added. Permanent groups or organizations are likely to have well established decision-making procedures. This can be an advantage in that less time should be needed to reach agreement on how the group should operate . At the same time, resistance to change may be a new source of difficulty. An organization that has historically operated in a top-down management style, may have a heard time adapating to a consensus building approach. A shared commitment to the long-term well being of the organization, however, can provide common ground on which to build.
Step 1 - Convening
Key Differences from helping an ad hoc group reach an agreement:
- Less of a problem getting started, routines are known
- Less mistrust of the convenor's motives (all part of the same group)
- Greater clarity about who needs to be involved
- Less difficulty launching a conflict assessment
- More experience with each other to build on
Step 2 - Clarifying Responsibilities
Key Differences from helping an ad hoc group reach an agreement:
- Less inclined to use an external professional neutral unless an impasse is reached
- Greater acceptance of the legitimacy of other participants
- Less of a problem to clarify responsibilities because of past experience
Step 3 - Deliberating
Key Differences from helping an ad hoc group reach an agreement:
- More experience dealing with each other; could cut either way (making it easier or harder to reach consensus depending on past experience)
- More experienced with consensus building techniques
- Presumably improvements have been made based on past experience
- Involvement in long-term relationship might lead parties to put greater value on maximizing joint gains
Step 4 - Deciding
Key Differences from helping an ad hoc group reach an agreement:
- Greater respect for needs of other parties; awareness that each person could be the odd-person-out the next time; may lead to an emphasis on reason giving and an appeal to objective criteria
- Commitments may be viewed with less skepticism because long-term relationships are in play (not necessarily)
- Impossible not to set at least informal precedent
Step 5 - Implementing Agreements
Key Differences from helping an ad hoc group reach an agreement:
- Long term relationships increase the focus on implementation
- Dispute resolution procedures may already be in place
- Past experience with each other may make it harder to get believable implementable agreements
Step 6 - Organizational Learning and Development
Key Differences from helping an ad hoc group reach an agreement:
- Clear need to invest in Organizational Learning
- Payoff of organizational development work is clear
6.1 Invest in Organizational Learning
For groups that will continue to work together, it is important to set aside time to reflect collectively on what can be learned from each episode in the group's history. Time should be set aside, periodically, to determine which features of the group's activities have worked well and which have not. Organizational learning can be assisted by qualified neutral parties.
6.2 Invest in Organizational Development
The lessons of organizational learning will not lead automatically to increased group capacity or improved decision-making. Training and other organizational development efforts must be made. These will require the time and attention of all participants to be effective. Organizational development can be assisted by qualified outside consultants.