Use Consensus, Not Rigid Rules, for Better Meetings

Are the board, committee, and other formal meetings you attend bogged down with confusing parliamentary procedures? Are there endless motions, seconds, amendments, and points of order? Is discussion limited or disallowed because it is not timely based on rigid protocols? Are matters quickly brought to a vote or tabled, foreclosing further deliberation? Are decisions ineffectual, embodying the will of a few and bypassing the concerns of many?

If these meetings frustrate you, chances are they are guided by a lengthy, rigid, late 19^th Century set of protocols called Robert’s Rules of Order. Look at the organization’s bylaws and these rules are likely mandated for running formal meetings, even though there is no legal requirement for doing so. Whether by default, a lack of imagination, or an assumption that this is how business is done, many organizations remain entrenched in these archaic methods for deliberation.

Let’s examine Robert’s Rules and consider alternatives that better support collaboration and consensus.

The Value and Purpose of Robert’s Rules

Robert’s Rules of Order were originally created in 1876 by U.S. Army Officer Henry Martyn Robert as a guide to parliamentary procedure, modeled after Congress, for use by non-legislative bodies. It is designed “to enable assemblies of any size, with due regard for every member’s opinion, to arrive at the general will on the maximum number of questions of varying complexity in a minimum amount of time.” It contemplates multiple scenarios to ensure full consideration of all member views, majority or minority. It provides descriptions, definitions, and practices for multiple forms of motions and points of order, calling and presiding over meetings, and facilitating debate, voting, and other deliberations.

Larger organizations may benefit from such formalized processes, similar to Congress, lest debate devolves into chaos and nothing is accomplished. Perhaps Robert’s Rules make sense for large groups to hold formal meetings, establish attendance and quorums, approve and incorporate agendas, minutes, and committee reports, and manage controversial discussions and deliberations of legal matters. In academia, perhaps they work for trustee meetings, faculty governance, and similar higher-level decision-making bodies.

Limitations and Abuses

Many deliberative bodies are not so large or complex to require the formality that Robert’s Rules demand. The reasons are clear.

Robert’s Rules are lengthy and difficult to fully and appropriately implement. The current edition is 816 pages and its “in brief” version is 224 pages. Even cheat sheets can be daunting with six separate forms of motions to consider, requiring knowledge of their specific applications. Smaller groups lack the luxury of large organizations who often have dedicated parliamentarians who can ensure Robert’s Rules are correctly implemented. While strict adherence to the Rules may not be a problem in most instances, decisions could be challenged based on technicalities, to which the group will be bound if their bylaws require the Rules for governance.

Robert’s Rules are also antithetical to a group’s innate interests in full participation and can be used by skilled Rules practitioners to dominate meetings and intimidate others. Lawrence Susskind and Jeffrey Cruikshank, authors of “Breaking Robert’s Rules: The New Way to Run Your Meeting, Build Consensus, and Get Results,” assert that while the Rules embrace the democratic notion that “majority rules,” they undermine a related principle of protecting minority interests. They note that good or “wise” decisions don’t usually result from the Rules which limit participants’ ability to reframe questions and reconsider motions and amendments except under narrow circumstances. Leaders can also push forward motions and voting in ways that channel and limit debate and lead to decisions they pre-determined before the meeting began.

There Are Better Ways To Run Meetings

Susskind and Cruikshank recommend “breaking Robert’s Rules” through the process of “consensus,” defined by Merriam-Webster as “(a) general agreement; (b) the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned, (c) group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” They present a five-stage model for doing this:

• Convene. This involves “getting the right people to the table with the right expectations.” It includes performing assessments to gauge the relative interests involved, the decisions to be made, who will be impacted, and who should be included in the group.
• Assign roles and responsibilities. This includes establishing and agreeing on ground rules for problem-solving and defining each member’s responsibilities. It further involves defining scope, mission, goals, and particulars like timelines, logistics, budget, and so forth.
• Group problem solve. The goal “is to generate packages, proposals, and ideas that can help all the parties do better than they would in the absence of an agreement.” This requires brainstorming, time, and perhaps multiple meetings so everyone can discuss and evaluate all options and suggest improvements before pushing to a decision.
• Reach agreement. Members respond to specific proposals regarding whether they can accept them and why or why not. Dissenting members must be willing to express unpopular views, and the group must be “willing to listen hard and respond to the concerns of the unhappy party, usually by trying to invent some modification that will bring them on board.” The MIT-Harvard Public Dispute Program recommends using independent facilitators who focus on “producing an agreement that could meet the underlying concerns of everyone in the room [with] no motions, no arcane rituals, no vote at the end.”
• Hold people to their commitments. Susskind and Cruikshank suggest a “nearly self-enforcing agreement” that is tight enough to ensure maximum commitment from all participants but “loose” enough in its language to allow parties to return and improve the agreement further.

More productive meetings occur when the group develops and follows rules that reflect their values and that everyone can understand. They emphasize outcome over process and are the product of full participation and respectful conversation. How consensus processes are utilized will depend on the nature of the group, including whether it is a standing committee or formed ad hoc to address a specific issue. Whatever the purpose or goal, even if implemented awkwardly, they are clearly preferable in most instances to rigid, exclusionary, rules developed for a different time.