Comparison of Robert's Rules of Order and Quaker-based Consensus


Robert's Rules of Order  Quaker-based Consensus
A single motion can constrain the discussion. Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.
Discussion takes the form of a debate with a win-lose approach. Discussion involves active listening and sharing information.
Few constraints are placed on the order or frequency of speaking. Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.
Ideas are treated as the property of the speaker; motions are noted with names. Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.
Differences resolved by voting on motion. Differences resolved by discussion. Clerk identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper. 
Chair calls for a vote.  Clerk or convener articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a "minute" of the decision.
Winners and losers are identified. Decision belongs to the winners.  Group as a whole is responsible for the decision, and the decision belongs to the group. 
Chair's vote can determine the decision when votes are tied. Clerk or convener can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.
Dissenters' perspectives suppressed in majority vote.  Dissenters' perspectives embraced.

Note: Consensus building practices can be used even where the final decision is made by vote.

© Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999
Earlham College
Richmond, IN 47374
USA
Please request permission to use here.