Consent-Based Decision Making

Consent-based decision making is a process derived from sociocracy. It differs from consensus: the goal is not for everyone to agree or be enthusiastic, but for no one to have a reasoned objection. The game provides a structured decision-making framework, where speaking occurs in turns and objections serve to improve the proposal. It is useful for experiencing a clearer collective decision that is more focused on the team's mission and less bogged down in debates.

Walkthrough

1. 1

   Establish the framework and the facilitator's role

   5 min

   The facilitator announces: "We will decide by consent: we are not seeking unanimous agreement, but the absence of reasoned objections." They clarify that the facilitator ensures the framework, the steps, and the turn-taking, without trying to convince anyone. Participants arrange themselves so they can see each other, or prepare their microphone and camera remotely. The aim is to create a safe space for speaking and avoid premature debates.

   Tip — Display the steps visibly throughout the exercise: this prevents the group from spontaneously returning to free discussion as soon as a topic becomes sensitive.

2. 2

   Present the proposal

   5 to 8 min

   The proposer presents their proposal concisely: what is being proposed, for what need, and what effect is sought for the team or its mission. The facilitator invites the group to listen without interrupting: "At this stage, you note your questions, but do not react yet." The proposal should be clear enough to be tested, amended, or withdrawn later. This step provides a common basis before any speaking occurs.

   Tip — Ask the proposer to formulate the proposal in a decision-making sentence, for example, "We decide to...", to avoid a vague idea or a debate of intentions.

3. 3

   Clarification round

   5 to 10 min

   The facilitator initiates a clarification round: "Everyone can only ask questions for understanding; it is not yet time to give an opinion." The proposer briefly answers factual questions or asks for clarification if the question already contains a reaction. Participants seek to understand the proposal, its terms, and its scope. The facilitator immediately reframes comments disguised as questions to maintain the quality of the process.

   Tip — Use the phrase "What information do you need to understand?" when someone starts with "Don't you think that...".

4. 4

   Reaction round

   5 to 10 min

   The facilitator opens a reaction round: "Everyone shares their feelings, tensions, enthusiasm, or reservations, without debate or cross-response." Participants speak in turn, and the proposer listens without justifying point by point. The aim is to bring forth useful signals before amending the proposal. The facilitator ensures that reactions remain short and personal, and are not turned into negotiations.

   Tip — Propose a very short speaking limit per person if the group is talkative; the constraint helps distinguish useful reactions from complete arguments.

5. 5

   Clarify, amend or withdraw the proposal

   5 to 8 min

   After hearing the reactions, the proposer takes the floor again. They can clarify the proposal, amend it to take into account what they have heard, or withdraw it if it is no longer relevant. The facilitator states: "The proposer does not have to integrate everything, but they can improve the proposal before testing for objections." The group listens to the final version that will be submitted for consent. This step avoids testing a proposal that is already clearly imprecise or fragile.

   Tip — Have the amended version reformulated aloud and note it visibly; otherwise, everyone risks voting mentally on a different version.

6. 6

   Objection round

   5 to 10 min

   The facilitator reminds the rule: "An objection is not a personal preference; it signals a risk for the team or its mission." They conduct a complete round and ask everyone if they see a reasoned objection to the proposal. Participants formulate, if applicable, the risk they perceive and its link to the team or its mission. If there are no objections, the decision is made by consent and the group moves on to celebration.

   Tip — When an objection resembles "I prefer something else," ask: "What concrete risk do you see for the team or its mission if we decide this now?"

7. 7

   Enhancing objections

   10 to 15 min

   If there is one or more objections, the facilitator addresses them one by one. They say: "We are not going to win against the objection; we will integrate it to improve the proposal." The group seeks a modification that alleviates the risk while preserving the original intent. The proposer and the objector check together if the amendment sufficiently addresses the risk. Once the objections are integrated, the facilitator can conduct another round of objections on the improved proposal.

   Tip — Address objections separately and note the risk and the amendment for each; this prevents the group from mixing everything up and returning to a general debate.

8. 8

   Celebrate the decision and close

   3 to 5 min

   When no more reasoned objections remain open, the facilitator clearly announces: "The decision is made by consent." They invite the group to celebrate briefly, with a gesture, a word, or a shared sign, to mark the transition from discussion to commitment. The final decision is read and, if necessary, noted with its amendments. This closure reinforces trust in the process and prevents the decision from being reopened immediately.

   Tip — Even if the celebration seems symbolic, do not skip it: it particularly helps reserved individuals perceive that the group has truly decided.

Variants

• Short version: choose a simple proposal and limit each turn to a brief intervention per person. This variant allows for experiencing the complete process in about 30 minutes.
• Learning version: after each step, take a one-minute meta-observation break to identify what helped or hindered the framework. It is suitable for a group discovering sociocracy.
• Remote version: use a shared board to display the proposal, clarifications, reactions, objections, and amendments. The facilitator calls on individuals one by one to maintain turn-taking.
• Observer version: one person does not participate in the decision and observes the respect of the steps, moments of debate, and the formulation of objections. They share their observations only during the debrief.