CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING A Political Transplant into the Business World

INTRODUCTIONBackground

INTRODUCTION

•Today’s society is increasingly polarized; perhaps more so than since the late 1960’s

•Society, which encompasses many different spheres, is based upon extremes and sees mostly in black and white

oIt’s easier that way

•There is always talk of society and people coming together to work for the common good but little to no planning or implementation of such policies

INTRODUCTION

•In order for society to run better and more efficient there must be a call for change in the ways which different institutions operate internally

•There are, basically, two types of institutions where a more consensus driven approach would improve all aspects of them

oPolitics/GovernmentoThe Business World

INTRODUCTION

•Consensus Decision Making (CDM) is a type of decision making where dialog, increased involvement, cooperation, and transparency play key roles in delivering an outcome

•CDM breaks the mold of majority rule by involving different players into the situation.

oAll of these different players have a voice and a say in the decision making process

•Every player has an equal presenceoNo one player is more important than the other

INTRODUCTION

•In the political world CDM has been used for over a century in some countries and organizations

oMost, almost all, have met with at least some betterment stemming from the use of CDM

•In the business world, especially today, there is little consensus about anything.

oThe business world may be even more polarized than the political world

•The current financial and business situation we find ourselves in is a result of many factors:

oA failure to listenoTransparencyoGreedoPrideoFear

A d

INTRODUCTION

•Problem Statement: Many problems in organizations stem from a power struggle between parties. There is a lack of consensus building tools utilized.

•Research Question: Can consensus building tools used in government settings be used in organizations to create a more productive environment?

DEFINITIONSImportant Terms to Understand the Study

DEFINITIONS

•Consensus Decision Making: A form of decision making which takes into account the will of the majority and the minority

•Consensus Democracy: A democracy which utilizes CDM in government affairs

•Polder Model: A specific model of CDM used in the government of the Netherlands

•Consociational State: A state built upon the principles of consensus where all groups have a say in the affairs of the state

RATIONALEThe Need for the Study

RATIONALE

•The need for this article can be summarized in a few short points:

oThe need for consensus is greater now more than ever due to the decisive nature of today’s social, political, economic, and political nature

Lipjhart, 2002

This research will hopefully grasp a better understanding of the need for consensus decision making style negotiations

RATIONALE

•The research is being done to help identify problems in todays organizations and, hopefully, find solutions to said problems vis-à-vis CDM

•Some problems faced today in business organizations are :

oGreedoLack of transparency oFighting factions with different, and sometimes

conflicting, interestsoLoss of visionoOthers

HYPOTHESISPredicted Answer to the Research Question

HYPOTHESIS

•If CDM is applied correctly and is aimed directly at the problem at hand in the business organization, many of the existing problems that create tension can be resolved in a constructive and mutually beneficial way.

LITERATURE REVIEWCentral Themes and Findings

LITERATURE REVIEW

•When trying to approach the question of consensus decision-making (CDM) in the business world from an empirical approach one may run into many different problems. First and foremost the majority of literature on CDM is approached from a political and governmental perspective not from a “lay” organizational setting. This problem is, however, easily remedied because in today’s world most governments are run like businesses. Arend Lipjahrt describes government as a “business for the people” (Lipjhart, 1999).

LITERATURE REVIEW

•CDM is an “inclusive way to resolve policy problems and conflicts while, at the same time, ensuring that the will of the majority is executed” (Diamond and Plattner, p259, para 2 2006).

•CDM is not a utopian way of making decisions where there will be no unhappy parties in the end.

•Parties involved will be able to at least voice their say and have that say taken into account when the final decision is made.

LITERATURE REVIEW

•CDM ensures that the decision making process will not just quell the problems of the elites but will, ultimately, benefit the people who will be affected by the decisions that are made (Reynolds, 2002).

•There are many famous examples of CDM being used in the governmental theatre, the most notable being found in the politics of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

oThe Netherlands is, contrary to popular belief, a deeply divided society even by today’s standards (Lipjhart, 1999).

LITERATURE REVIEW

LITERATURE REVIEW

LITERATURE REVIEW

•These four pillars have very opposing ideas that normally would be at odds with each other on almost every issue.

•However, the elites of each have always come together and worked together on policy problems that would ensure that the people, from any pillar, would benefit (Barry, 1979).

oThey do this through a complex procedure of coalition government formation where political parties representing all or most of the four pillars are represented.

LITERATURE REVIEW

•It is not uncommon, in fact it is expected, to see political parties representing socialists to be in a government with a liberal party or for Catholics and Protestants to work together in a governmental setting (Lustick, 1997).

oThis phenomena is known as consocialism.

•However, the initial cooperation between parties is only one aspect of CDM.

•The second aspect, and perhaps the most important in terms of practical applications, is the way in which the decisions are made once a consensus group is put together

LITERATURE REVIEW

•CDM calls for the establishment of different roles for each person and each party to play (Butler and Rothstein, 2004)

•First, there must be a dominant player; this is usually the group or political party with the most seats in Parliament.

•Secondly, there must be an opposing dominant player, usually the party or group with the second largest amount of parliamentary seats.

•Thirdly, there must be what is called a unity player or bridge builder (Crepez, Koelble, and Wilsford, 2002)

LITERATURE REVIEW

•After the government is formed the negotiations begin to present the Monarch with the government plan or agenda of policies to be enacted.

•CDM does not end there however, it must continue for the tenure of the government for there will be times when there will be disagreement even after the policies have been agreed (Reynolds, 2002).

LITERATURE REVIEW

•The application of CDM in the business world can be seen as difficult when not looking at other examples of CDM. Hopefully seeing how CDM can be applied in a quasi-business setting will enable the reader to see what it would be like in a modern organizational setting.

METHODOLOGYThe Roadmap

METHODOLOGY

•The way in which the research would be qualified is that of a “mixed” or hybrid methodology

oApproximately 80-85% of the research will be qualitative

o15-20% will be quantitative, meaning that some sort of mathematics and formulas will be employed

•The qualitative part will consist of the followingoInformation from typed resources

Books and Electronic ResourcesInterviews via Email and “face to face” interviews

METHODOLOGY

•Sample interview questions may be:oWhat are the advantages/disadvantages of CDM?oCan CDM in the political sphere be seen as successful?oIn what way can aspects of CDM be applied to the

business world

•The qualitative part may include:oGraphs and chartsoNumerical formulas

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

•Barry, Brian (1979).Political Accommodation and Consocianal Democracy. British Journal of Political Science. 17, 477-505.

•Butler, CT & Rothstein, Amy (2004). On Conflict and Consensus. San Francisco, CA: Thirteenth Printing.

•Crepez, M, Koeble, T, & Wilsford, D (2000). Democracy and Institutions: The Life and Work of Arend Lipjhart. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

•Diamond, L, & Plattner, M (2006). Electoral Systems and Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

REFERENCES

•Lipjhart, Arend (1999). Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

•Lipjhart, Arend (2004). Constitutional Design for Divided Societies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

•Lustick, Ian (1997). Lijphart, Lakatos and Consocialism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

•Reynolds, Andrew (2002). The Architecture of Democracy, Constitutional Design and Conflict Management. New York, NY: New York University Press