3. 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
4. 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/Government
oThe Business World
5. 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 presence
oNo one player is more important than the other
6. 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 listen
oTransparency
oGreed
oPride
oFear
7. 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?
9. 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
11. 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
12. 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 :
oGreed
oLack of transparency
oFighting factions with different, and sometimes
conflicting, interests
oLoss of vision
oOthers
14. 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.
16. 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).
17. 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.
18. 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).
21. 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.
22. 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
23. 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,
24. 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).
25. 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.
27. 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 following
oInformation from typed resources
Books and Electronic Resources
Interviews via Email and “face to face”
interviews
28. 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 charts
oNumerical formulas
30. 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.
31. 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
