Each group uses a slightly different process to reach consensus – with different degrees of structure and formalities. The key to making this work is for everyone to clearly express their needs and views and for the group to use this information to find a solution that builds on the basis of common training and resolves disputes. In an ideal consensus process, there would be no block, as greater concern about a proposal would have been noticed and addressed before moving on to the decision phase. The fact that someone feels the need to block a proposal means that something has gone wrong before. However, this happens sometimes, so the blocking option should be available. A clear phase of the review of the agreement helps to avoid this. By clearly presenting the proposal and inviting people to indicate whether they agree or disagree, we have a much clearer idea of reaching consensus. The benefits listed below are not automatic when a group switches to consensus! As a general rule, we have to work hard to make it a reality. But if these things are what you want, learning to use consensus is a great place to start.
During the 3 rounds, there was an increase in the percentage of agreements for all statements, with only 2 statements (Tables 6 and 8) until the 3rd round showing some disagreement, compared to 7 in the first round. This shows the evolution of consensus. Statement 4 (Table 7) had the highest percentage of disagreements in the first round, but total approval until the 3rd round, which shows that views can change considerably. It can really help to use a paperboard or whiteboard to write the areas of the agreement and the problems to be solved. This means that everyone can see what is happening, and it concentrates the discussion. In an ideal consensus process, there would be no block, as greater concerns about a proposal should be expressed before the decision-making phase. However, sometimes people are not able to express their concerns clearly enough or are not heard by the group. In such situations, the Bloc serves as a protection to ensure that decisions are supported by everyone. The movements of oscillators at the individual and group level were equivalent to those of Scheibe et al.
A deviation at the level of conformity, „highly agreed” or „accept” between the towers was evident in most statements and was not dependent on changes in the explanation formulation (Table 7). The phenomenon of the lack of reaction of two participants in the second round had an impact on the oscillation movement and its lack of reaction led to a misleading tendency to an agreement (Table 6). Individually, both participants were not contrary to this assertion, which highlighted disadvantages in the use of percentages. It should be noted that non-responders may have a significant influence on sample size when interpreting percentages, which could lead to deceptive oscillator movements, as Suggested by Scheibe et al. [16].