Overcoming Challenges

There can be many challenges preventing consensus, and the following sections describe some techniques to address those challenges.

If Consensus Cannot be Reached, Who Must Agree?

A healthy Consensus Decision-Making process encourages and outs dissent early, maximizing the chance of accommodating the views of all minorities.

Since unanimity may be difficult to achieve, especially in large groups, or unanimity may be the result of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives, or plain impatience with the process of debate, The Open Group may use an alternative benchmark of consensus known as Unanimity minus two.

Unanimity Minus Two (U-2)

The Unanimity Minus Two (or U-2) rule is a technique for Consensus Decision-Making where a proposal can pass even if up to two members dissent. This approach balances the need for broad agreement while preventing a single individual from blocking progress.

Before using this rule, always explain the rule and its rationale. People accept outcomes more readily when the process feels fair.

How U-2 Works

  • Instead of requiring full unanimity, decisions can move forward as long as no more than two members object

  • This prevents decision paralysis while still ensuring strong consensus

  • It preserves a minority voice for individuals without giving them veto power

  • It is used to encourage collaborative consensus decisions while avoiding deadlock

  • It is often used in situations where full agreement is difficult but near-unanimity consensus is required

  • Dissenting pairs can present alternate views of what is wrong with the decision under consideration; they can be empowered to find the common ground that will enable them to convince a third, decision-blocking decision-maker to join them

    If the pair are unable to convince a third party to join them within a set time, their arguments are deemed to be unconvincing.

When to Use the U-2 Rule

It should be noted that this rule is not ideal for all group sizes. The U-2 rule works best in groups of about five to nine people. This size balances diversity of opinion with the ability to reach near-consensus without stalling.

The research shows the following:

  • Small groups (3–4): Too few members for meaningful dissent; one or two holdouts can dominate

  • Medium groups (5–9): Optimal for diversity and deliberation

    Two dissenters represent ~20–40% of the group, which is enough to signal concern without blocking progress.

  • Large groups (10+): Risk of fragmentation

    Two dissenters may not represent a meaningful minority, and reaching near-unanimity becomes harder.

Scaling the Rule

For larger groups, adapting the rule to unanimity-minus-three (U–3) for group size 10-14, or unanimity-minus-four (U–4) for group size 15-20, can also work, however you need to calibrate it carefully to preserve legitimacy and avoid marginalizing dissent.

The goal is to keep the dissent threshold around 20-30% of the group. This ensures minority voices are heard, but does not paralyze the process. Beyond 20 members, you might consider tiered decision-making or representative subgroups, as even U–4 can feel too rigid or too lenient depending on context.

Before scaling, you should consider the nature of the decision. High stakes or irreversible decisions may warrant stricter consensus.

When Consensus Cannot be Reached

Although the Consensus Decision-Making process should, ideally, identify and address concerns and reservations early, proposals do not always garner full consensus from the decision-making body. When a call for consensus on a motion is made, a dissenting delegate in The Open Group has one of two options:

  • Declare reservations

    Forum/Consortium/Work Group members who are willing to let a motion pass but desire to register their concerns with the Forum/Consortium/Work Group may choose to “declare reservations”. If there are significant reservations about a motion, the decision-making body may choose to modify or re-word the proposal.

  • Stand aside

    A “stand aside” may be registered by a member who has a “serious disagreement” with a proposal, but is willing to let the motion pass. Although stand asides do not block a motion, it is often regarded as a strong “nay vote” and the concerns of stand asides are usually addressed by modifications to the proposal. A member may also stand asides if they feel they are incapable of adequately understanding or participating in the proposal.

Addressing Power Imbalances

A power imbalance in Consensus Decision-Making occurs when certain individuals or subgroups hold disproportionate influence over the process, undermining the principle of equal participation and shared authority. There are some techniques to address this, as outlined below.

De-Emphasize Hierarchies

Level the playing field: Avoid using titles, ranks, or other hierarchical markers during discussions.

Focus on Group Goals

Shift attention from individuals to the shared mission and objectives​.

Clarify the Decision-Making Process

Transparency: Clearly outline how decisions will be made, ensuring the process does not favor more powerful individuals.

Other Strategies

  • Equal speaking time: Use timers to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to speak

  • Silent brainstorming: Allow participants to write their thoughts before open discussion, reducing the influence of dominant voices​

Dealing with Conflict

Appointing a facilitator is strongly recommended. Facilitators can keep discussions on track, manage group tension, and focus members on shared vision.​

Acknowledge Conflict is Normal​

Let participants know that conflict is a normal part of reaching consensus and can lead to better decisions​.

Deal With It Early​

Identify and address conflicts before they escalate or disrupt the process​.

Set Up Ground Rules​

Encourage respectful dialogue, active listening, and a commitment to collaboration​.

Mediation​

  • Facilitators can help guide conversation and mediate disagreements ​

  • Facilitators can refocus the group on shared goals and redirect tension​

Focus on the Issue​, Not the Person

Disagreements are about the issue or proposal, not the individual.​

Group-Think

Group-think is the practice of making decisions as a group resulting in poor, or unchallenged decision-making​.

​Recognize the behavior:​

  • Self-censorship by participants​

  • Dismissal of alternative views​

  • Pressure to conform​

​A few of the techniques to mitigate the problem of “group-think” are as follows:

  • Normalize disagreements: Remind participants that differing views strengthen the group’s decisions and are not a threat​

  • Encourage independent thinking: Ask members to research prior to attending a meeting, or to think about the issues ahead of the group discussion​

  • Avoid rushing: Allow sufficient time to reflect and review decisions, and revisit major proposals at least once to ensure no viewpoint is overlooked​

  • Ask critical questions: For example, are there any alternative solutions that we have not considered?