It can happen when a school board meets, and it can happen just as easily in a meeting of teachers or senior management. A proposal is being discussed, and a consensus is proving elusive. The chair of the meeting is reluctant rush the issue to a vote because doing so will inevitably alienate a significant number of participants.
It seems that the days of making easy, clear-cut decisions may be over in today’s increasingly polarised society. As James March and Chip Heath note in their book “A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen”, arriving at a decision in a meeting of people with different perspectives can involve varying appetites for risk-taking or risk-aversion, the leader’s personal charisma, the dynamics of giving and taking advice, the organisational politics surrounding the decision, the ambiguity of information provided, perceived external pressures, and the vested interests of stakeholders – among many other variables. Board chairs and Principals today must negotiate varying points of view, navigate ambiguity, and lead their constituents to favourable outcomes.
In the discussion of any proposal, there are certain key questions which must be answered, either implicitly and taken for granted, or explicitly if substantial disagreements emerge. Among such core questions are “How does this proposal reflect or enhance the school’s Mission and Core Values?”, “Why is this issue important to you?”, and “How does this issue affect the school’s principal focus, which is the welfare of our students?”.
When disagreements arise, strong emotions may come into play. When this happens, meeting leaders (such as the Board Chair or the Principal) must perform an important role, which is to lower the emotional stakes of the discussion. Sometimes this can be achieved by breaking down a larger issue into smaller parts, although on other occasions the best approach may be to adjourn the meeting for a while to give everyone a rest and rehydration break.
When disagreements seem more substantial or difficult to resolve, there are several more formal approaches that can be helpful. There are several frameworks that I have found especially effective in building a consensus.
Gradients of Agreement
The “Gradients of Agreement Scale” was first developed in 1987 by Sam Kaner, Duane Berger and the staff of Community at Work in San Francisco, USA. It has since been translated into Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese, Arabic and Swahili for use in large and small organisations around the world.
The idea behind Gradients of Agreement is that issues are rarely clear-cut yes/no matters. Rather than forcing meeting participants into one of two polar opposite positions, Gradients of Agreement offers a framework to identify and label degrees of support or opposition for any proposal being discussed.
This process usually lowers the intensity of emotional commitment for those people who self-identify towards both ends of the scale, thus opening a way forward to arrive somewhere closer to a negotiated broad consensus.
If and when a decision is required, a vote can proceed on the basis support in any of the first seven categories in the Gradients of Agreement Scale, although it is preferable to have a significant number of votes in Categories 1 and 2 for any significant decisions or are matters that will require a broad team of people to implement.
Six Thinking Hats
The “Six Thinking Hats” was first developed in 1985 by the prolific Maltese author and business consultant, Edward De Bono. It is a model to encourage conflict-free parallel thinking to solve complex problems and proposals that assumes the human brain thinks in six different directions. The model allocates a coloured hat to each type of thinking, and then asks groups within a meeting to imagine wearing each hat in turn together for an equal amount of time while discussing the issue at hand from the perspective of the hat with that colour.
Red is intended to reflect emotion and passion. When wearing the red hat, the group focusses on their initial, immediate, quick emotional reactions to the issue being discussed, asking questions such as “how do we feel about the issue?”, “what are our gut reactions and emotions?”, and “what does our intuition tell us about the issue?”.
White is intended to represent a blank sheet of paper. When wearing the white hat, the group focusses with a neutral mindset on the data and information required to address the issue, asking questions such as “what are the facts?”, “what information is available?” and “what information is relevant?”.
Yellow is intended to represent sunshine and optimism. When wearing the yellow hat, the group focusses on positive outcomes and possibilities, asking questions such as “what are the positive, constructive points?”, “what are the benefits and advantages?”, and “how can we make it happen?”.
Black is intended to remind us of dark, threatening storm clouds. When wearing the black hat, the group focusses on the challenges and difficulties of the proposal, asking questions such as “what are the risks and dangers?”, “what problems might be encountered?” and “what cautions need to be identified?”.
Green signifies growth and creativity. When wearing the green hat, the group brainstorms creative opportunities, asking questions such as “what creative potential is there to do something new and different?”, “what potential is there for growth and movement?” and “using some lateral thinking, what new aspects can be identified?”.
Blue signifies the over-arching sky above us. When wearing the blue hat, the group focusses on organisation, planning, integration, control, oversight and reflection. The group tries to draw together the insights gained while wearing the other five hats, forming coherent conclusions, monitoring and reflecting on the processes used.
Groups that have used the Six Thinking Hats report that decisions often seem to make themselves as people work co-operatively with each other in parallel. The process gives weight to diverse opinions and views, and balances optimist-pessimism, rational-emotional dimensions, and so on. For those so inclined, Six Thinking Hats also provides a framework that encourages lateral thinking and creativity.
The Delphi Technique
The Delphi Technique, which is also known as the Delphi Method or ETE (Estimate-Talk-Estimate) is a structured communication technique that was developed in the 1950s by Olaf Helmer and Norman Dalkey at the RAND Corporation to achieve consensus among experts. In essence, it involves multiple rounds of anonymous surveys or questionnaires, where participants provide their opinions independently. The experts are allowed to adjust their answers in subsequent rounds on the basis of how they interpret the “group response” that has been provided to them. Since multiple rounds of questions are asked and the panel is told what the group thinks as a whole, this iterative process continues until a clear consensus emerges. The anonymity of responses minimises the influence of dominant voices and reduces groupthink, making it particularly useful in high-stakes decision-making and complex problem-solving scenarios.
Although a powerful technique, the Delphi Method is too complex and time-consuming to be used to build a consensus in the context on an individual board or staff meeting. The Delphi Technique has been used by schools and larger educational institutions for curriculum development, strategic planning, and policy formulation. It has been found to be especially useful when building new cross-sector agreements by bringing together diverse perspectives from educators, bureaucrats, politicians and industry leaders.
Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making (CODM) Model
The Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making (CODM) model was developed by Tim Hartnett in 2010. Somewhat similar to Quaker-based consensus, it is a seven-step process that helps groups navigate decision-making while ensuring that all perspectives are considered. The steps include framing the issue, having an open discussion, exploring options by identifying underlying concerns, developing a proposal, refining the proposal to select a direction, reaching a final agreement, and implementing the decision. This model emphasises inclusivity, constructive dialogue, and mutual understanding, making it a valuable tool for teams seeking to reach agreement without alienating minority viewpoints. CODM is particularly effective in schools where a focus on the Mission (the school’s enduring purpose) drives the direction of decision-making.
Dynamic Facilitation
Developed in the early 1980s by Jim Rough, the Co-founder of the Centre for Wise Democracy, Dynamic Facilitation contrasts starkly with structured approaches such as CODM and the Delphi Technique. Dynamic Facilitation is “a choice-creating process” that encourages free-flowing dialogue and creative problem-solving while guiding participants toward a shared resolution. Rather than following a rigid structure, a facilitator actively listens, captures key points, and helps individuals express their perspectives without judgment. Disagreements are directed at the facilitator rather than the person who expressed them, and the facilitator responds by welcoming and validating all viewpoints. This approach opens the way for underlying emotions to be explored safely, transforming conflicts into innovative solutions using four charts: solutions, concerns, data, and problem-statements. Dynamic Facilitation is said to be especially useful in situations where participants have deeply entrenched opinions or emotional stakes in the outcome.
Yarning Circles
For thousands of years, “yarning circles” have been used in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures to solve disputes, learn from elders, build respectful relationships and pass on cultural knowledge. People in other indigenous cultures, especially in North America, have used similar techniques in what is generically referred to as the “Circle Process” to promote equal participation and deep listening.
The technique is simple and highly effective when participants approach it with an open mindset. Those involved in wrestling with a decision sit in a circle which symbolises equality and inclusivity. Participants take turns speaking, often using a talking piece such as a stick to ensure only one person speaks at a time. Yarning circles emphasise respectful dialogue and listening to others, ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to speak and be heard. This method fosters respect, patience, and thoughtful consideration of diverse perspectives. The Circle Process is particularly effective in community settings, conflict resolution, and school gatherings (including board meetings) where building trust and fostering a strong sense of shared purpose are key goals.
A final thought – insisting on consensus is misguided
Many school boards like to make decisions by consensus rather than having to put motions to a vote. Agreements reached by consensus generally indicate that board members are united behind the decision that has been made.
A few boards insist that EVERY decision is reached by consensus and will not allow a resolution to be passed until consensus is achieved. This is poor practice and should be avoided because it effectively gives any dissenting voice the power of veto. If a school board comprises 11 members, ten of whom wish to pass a resolution at a meeting, it would be absurd to allow one oppositional member to over-ride the wishes of the other ten members.
Consensus means everyone agrees. A practical alternative when consensus seems impossible to achieve is consent. Consent means that board agrees to move forward unless someone sees a risk that is so significant that is extends beyond an “I don’t like it” risk to the level of a “this might seriously harm the school” risk.
Every school board has procedures to resolve issues by voting if and when required. If consensus or consent are both unachievable, then good practice demands that the issue be resolved with a vote.
- Dr Stephen Codrington
We offer support for school leaders and board members in many areas, including workshops on board dynamics and meetings.
Further information on this and many other facets of best practice in school leadership and governance is provided in the books “Optimal School Governance", and “Insights into School Leadership and Board Governance”, which can be ordered directly through Pronins.
You may also be interested in previous articles which are archived at https://optimalschool.com/articles.html. You can subscribe to receive future articles by e-mail using the red button below.
