Consent

Consent is a way of making group decisions in which a proposal is adopted as soon as nobody raises a reasoned objection to it. The question put to the group is whether anyone sees a reason the proposal would harm the group's work, which is a lower bar than getting everyone to agree.

Consent and consensus

Consensus looks for everyone's support, so a single person who prefers another option keeps the discussion going. Consent moves the burden of proof to the person who blocks. They have to argue. A preference gets heard without stopping the decision. Sociocracy 3.0 sums up the test in one question: is the proposal good enough for now and safe enough to try? Groups usually give such a decision a review date, so they can adjust it once they have seen it work.

What counts as an objection

An objection shows how the proposal would harm the work the group has committed to. "I would prefer something else" is a preference. A worry the person cannot yet back with reasoning is a concern, which gets recorded and blocks nothing.

Holacracy writes the test down. Its constitution treats a concern as an objection only when the objector argues four points:

• the proposal would reduce the circle's capacity to enact its purpose or accountabilities
• it would limit a role the objector represents in that circle
• the problem would be new, created by adopting the proposal
• the proposal would certainly cause that harm, or could cause it before the circle has a chance to adapt

The facilitator checks that each point is argued, and leaves aside whether the argument is right.

Where consent is used

Sociocracy and holacracy use consent for governance decisions: creating or changing a role, setting a policy, electing someone to a role. Day-to-day decisions stay with the person who holds the role, inside its domain.