Consensus Building

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Step 1: Surface All Positions

Before seeking agreement, map where everyone actually stands.

THE QUESTION/DECISION: [what the group needs to agree on]

POSITIONS HELD:
- Position A: [description] — Held by: [who]
- Position B: [description] — Held by: [who]
- Position C: [description] — Held by: [who]

UNSTATED POSITIONS: [any positions people may hold but haven't voiced]

Technique: Use a round-robin or anonymous written input. Do NOT start with the loudest voice or the leader’s preference.

Step 2: Identify Areas of Existing Agreement

Most groups agree on more than they think. Find the common ground first.

ALREADY AGREED (things no one disputes):
1. [point of agreement]
2. [point of agreement]
3. [point of agreement]

SHARED VALUES/GOALS (even if methods differ):
1. [shared value]
2. [shared value]

PERCENTAGE OF TERRITORY ALREADY AGREED: [rough estimate]

Step 3: Identify the Real Disagreements

Surface disagreements are often proxies for deeper ones. Dig down.

SURFACE DISAGREEMENT: [what people say they disagree about]
UNDERLYING DISAGREEMENT: [what they actually disagree about]

COMMON UNDERLYING CAUSES:
- [ ] Different facts/information (fixable with data)
- [ ] Different values/priorities (requires trade-offs)
- [ ] Different risk tolerance (requires explicit discussion)
- [ ] Different time horizons (short-term vs long-term)
- [ ] Different interests/incentives (requires acknowledging)
- [ ] Lack of trust (requires process, not arguments)

REAL DISAGREEMENTS TO RESOLVE:
1. [disagreement] — Type: [facts/values/risk/time/interests/trust]
2. [disagreement] — Type: [facts/values/risk/time/interests/trust]

Step 4: Generate Options

Move from “my position vs. your position” to “what options serve our shared goals?”

OPTIONS GENERATED:
1. [option] — Addresses concerns of: [who]
2. [option] — Addresses concerns of: [who]
3. [option — hybrid/creative] — Addresses concerns of: [who]

OPTION GENERATION TECHNIQUES USED:
- [ ] "What would satisfy both sides?"
- [ ] "What if we did X on a trial basis?"
- [ ] "What if we split the decision?" (do A for context 1, B for context 2)
- [ ] "What's the smallest version we could all support?"

Step 5: Use Gradients of Agreement

Binary yes/no kills nuance. Use a gradient instead.

GRADIENT OF AGREEMENT (for each option, each person rates):

1 = Wholeheartedly support
2 = Support with minor reservations
3 = Can live with it (will not block)
4 = Have significant concerns (but won't block if heard)
5 = Cannot support (would block — must explain why)

OPTION [X] RATINGS:
- [Person]: [1-5] — Note: [any conditions]
- [Person]: [1-5] — Note: [any conditions]

THRESHOLD FOR CONSENSUS: No 5s, and average below [3.0]

If anyone rates a 5, their concerns must be addressed before proceeding. This is not a veto — it is a signal that the option needs modification.

Step 6: Lock In Agreement and Document

Agreement that isn’t documented doesn’t exist.

CONSENSUS REACHED:

DECISION: [the agreed-upon path]
CONDITIONS: [any conditions or modifications required to get consensus]
CONCERNS NOTED: [concerns that were heard but did not block]
REVIEW DATE: [when the group will revisit to see if concerns materialized]

COMMITMENTS:
- [Person] will: [action] by [date]
- [Person] will: [action] by [date]

WHAT "DISAGREE AND COMMIT" MEANS HERE:
[Anyone who rated 3-4 agrees to support the decision publicly and give it a fair chance through the review date]

Integration

Use with:

• /tfac -> Facilitate the consensus-building session
• /mtgd -> Structure the meeting around the consensus process
• /cmp -> Compare the final options side-by-side before rating