In my work with nonprofits, I’m always mystified by the pervasive use and abuse of parliamentary procedure, also known as Robert’s Rules of Order.
Many, many board members believe that their discussions and decisions are somehow more valid when they make motions, second those motions, call the question, and hold formal votes that are recorded in the minutes.
If you’re charged with chairing or facilitating the meeting, watch out. Robert’s Rules can make it harder to do your job.
How people abuse Robert’s Rules
People who know the Rules – or think they know the Rules – often use their alleged know-how as a way to exercise power over the group.
“That’s out of order,” bellows the board bully. “You need to raise a point of order if you’re going to reopen discussion on that motion, and you can’t do that because we’ve already accepted an amendment to the original motion.”
In response, everyone feels sheepish, looks confused, and shuts up. All sorts of petty arguments arise from the ignorance or abuse of parliamentary procedure.
There is no law mandating that nonprofits must make decisions using Robert’s Rules. After all, you’re not a parliament. You’re an animal shelter, or a sports league, or a theater, or an advocacy organization.
Consensus: A tool we use every day
By way of comparison, imagine you’re sitting around with a group of friends, trying to decide on a place for dinner. You discuss the options; people advocate for one restaurant or another. Perhaps you reach a tentative decision.
At that point, someone opts out, saying, “I had Thai for lunch, but if that’s what everybody wants, please go and enjoy yourselves.” Maybe the rest of you decide to go, but more likely you return to the list to try to identify another option that will work for everyone.
How consensus works
The decision-making model you’re using is called consensus, and it works something like this.
- Someone presents an idea. It could be a formal proposal, but most of the time it’s just an idea, not yet fully formed.
- The idea is passed around and the pros and cons are discussed.
- As a result of the discussion – the more input, the better – the idea is often modified.
- If a general agreement seems to be emerging (this is where good listening and facilitation skills are helpful), you can test for consensus by restating the latest version of the idea or proposal to see if everybody agrees.
- If anyone dissents, you return to the discussion to see if you can modify the idea further to make it acceptable to everyone.
Consensus reflects complexity
Unlike parliamentary procedure, which results in an up-or-down, yes-or-no vote, the consensus process allows for (and even encourages) a continuum of responses.
At one end is strong endorsement. “Great idea. I love it!” At the other end is strong disagreement. “It’s a horrible idea, and I’ll do everything I can to block it.”
The consensus spectrum allows for more subtle reactions: “I like it pretty well” to “I don’t like it, but I can live with it” to “I disagree, but if you’re all in favor, I won’t stand in the way.”
This is an intuitive way to make decisions, since it reflects how most of us make shared choices in our daily lives.
Combining consensus with voting
In the traditional consensus model, one person has the power to block the decision if they strongly disagree. If the board is unable to create a compromise that will satisfy the blocker, they may call for a majority vote as a last resort.
This is sometimes known as “modified consensus.” For groups that want to try consensus, it may be the best way to begin.
Be aware that consensus decision-making is often time-consuming and requires patience and persistence. On the other hand, it creates a more informal and equitable environment where everyone’s voice is valued. From my perspective, this is an excellent trade-off.
In our next post, we’ll show you a great facilitation tool you can use to build consensus with any group.
Adapted from Andy’s book, Great Boards for Small Groups. Check it out!
The death by a thousand cuts method of deliberation exposes everybody to the influence of personalities in the group. Psychology can be tyrannical. The beauty of Robert’s Rules is that it provides if followed an environment where people are encouraged to speak their minds without feeling pressure. You state you view. You listen to others’ views. You respond and then you vote. No cross talk. It’s clean, unlike the social setting where people are conditioned to try and be agreeable at the expense of their true opinions. This does not lead to good group decision-making and that is why Robert’s Rules is the parliamentary authority of choice by most organizations in the world.
from the Maryland Association of Nonprofit Organizations:
Note of Caution: If your board requires an excessive use of Roberts Rules to operate, this may be a sign of deeper divisions or issues that need to be resolved on your board or in your organization. For most boards, the vast majority of decisions are made by consensus or unanimous vote. If your board has a significant number of divided votes or contentious debates that require strict adherence to Roberts Rules in order to conduct business, mediation or facilitation is [sic] may be needed.
Our non-profit board has to operate using RR of Order because it’s stated that way in our constitution and bylaws. This is what a parliamentarian told me the other day. Yet you don’t appear to make that distinction in your article above. Why is that? Someone from our organization might read that and believe what you say is true for all non-profits. Might be time to make a retraction to your article then and make sure what you say is absolutely clear and concise. Otherwise you could lead someone astray from the truth.
It’s a fair point, Patty. Thanks for bringing it up.
AND … Most bylaws include provisions for changing the bylaws. If Robert’s Rules isn’t working for your organization, you have the option of amending the bylaws to use other decision-making rules and processes.
Excellent message, Andy. Robert’s Rules are complex and arcane. As for the board’s I’m on, we do much as you described. We talk things through till we have something we can all go with, though, as you say, perhaps with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Certainly, the specifics of how each board operates will depend on its size, among other things. But as you say, there is no law requiring Robert’s Rules. That said, especially for larger board’s handling large sums or money or matters of significant consequence, it would be good to adopt a written “decision-making policy” — or include that in the bylaws.
Thanks Michael! I posted this piece YEARS ago. Interesting to see that it still has legs.
Do you need a parliamentarian with consensus? Shouldn’t there be a vote whether you want consensus or Robert’s Rules of Order? Does consensus overrule a motion for a vote made first?
Can there be a vote with discussion afterwards? So many questions…
Hi Eric — Per your questions…
I’ve never heard of a parliamentarian in a consensus process, though some organizations designate a clerk to fill a similar-ish role. For a deeper dive, study the Quakers.
Yes, if you’re changing your decision-making model, you need to authorize that change. If you currently use yes-or-no voting, you would presumably need to vote to change the model.
Regarding your questions about sequence, I fear that you are overthinking things. Most of the groups I work with can come to some sort of agreement through conversation (good facilitation really helps) and then vote, as needed, to affirm what they have decided informally.
I have used both Roberts Rules, and Consensus buildings. I prefer consensus but have to take the situation into consideration.
For me the hybrid approach works best. There are times when you must decide within a time frame. The group needs to distinguish are you in consensus friendly decision -making setting or is there an urgency to expedite decision making so as not to compromise quality of service or needed funding.