Systemic Consensing (SC) is a method for collective decision-making in groups, based on the principle of querying resistance. The goal is to find solutions that trigger the lowest total resistance and thus achieve the highest level of acceptance within the group. Rather than asking who is “in favor,” the question is: How strong is your resistance to this suggestion?
This shift in perspective enables:
SC promotes consideration, includes all voices, and avoids the adversarial dynamics of majority decisions.
In group decisions, it’s rarely necessary for everyone to be enthusiastic. What matters more is that no one has strong objections. That’s why SC focuses on resistance.
The shared process and the use of a scaled resistance query mean that everyone contributes to the solution—and can stand behind it.
An additional agreement query can be helpful when:
In these cases, a scaled agreement query can help surface subtle preference differences.
If there is only one suggestion, the
objection question
is asked: “Does someone object to this suggestion?”
If no one objects, the suggestion can be implemented.
If there is at least one objection, further suggestions are invited, and an
SC process begins.
In the simplest case, this involves collecting suggestions, writing them down, and rating them with resistance points. These are added manually and displayed next to the suggestions. (For details, see below.)
|
Situation |
Type of Question |
Term |
Question Type |
|
Only one suggestion |
“Does someone object to this suggestion?” |
Objection Question |
Closed Yes/No question |
|
Several suggestions |
“How strong is your resistance to this suggestion?” |
Resistance Query |
Open scale question (0–10) |
→ The difference lies in the type of question, not in the terms objection vs. resistance.
Before collecting concrete proposals, it is helpful to gather the wishes for a good solution. These usually reflect higher-level values and often have a connecting effect: Many people realize they share similar concerns – such as fairness, feasibility, or a solution that includes as many as possible.
The wishes provide a shared orientation for the next steps. They support the formulation of new proposals and guide the later evaluation. At the same time, they bring a positive focus into the process: Even before discussing objections, the group builds a vision of what it wants – a shared direction that unites.
“Wishes for a good solution” are therefore a systemically important element: Although the actual assessment is based on resistance, the positive is included right from the start.
Below is the standard process for SC when there are multiple suggestions and resistance is queried.
Gather alternative solution suggestions, including the passive option.
If needed: interim ratings, exploration of resistance, and collection of
additional suggestions.
· For each suggestion: “How strong is your resistance to this suggestion?”
· Use a scale from 0–10: 0 = no resistance → this may mean enthusiasm or indifference.
The evaluation can serve as:
If a group or leadership chooses an option other than the one with the lowest resistance , they should explain their reasoning to the group.
“What does this result mean? What are our next steps?”
Possible next steps:
Once the option with the least resistance has been identified, it can be helpful for the group to explicitly express its consent to implementing the decision. This is not the same as supporting the option — it simply means being willing to go along with it. Such consent can strengthen commitment and enhance the energy needed for successful implementation.
This ensures commitment and boosts the group's readiness to take action.
The passive option describes what happens if no decision is made:
“Status quo” or “We do nothing.”
It must be defined clearly in relation to the decision at hand.
Passive option: “We keep the current procedure.”
If all other suggestions generate more resistance, it makes sense to change nothing.
Sometimes a decision process stalls—perhaps due to confusion, rising concerns, or visible frustration. In such moments, participants often make a suggestion about how to proceed. This is not a content-based suggestion, but one at the meta-level.
Process suggestions address the question how the group should move forward—not what should be decided.
Process suggestions take priority over content suggestions. Once a process suggestion is made, the objection question is asked. If there are multiple process suggestions or objections, SC is used at the meta-level.
In live settings, it helps to visually separate process suggestions (e.g. on a separate flipchart). This makes it clear that the group is now operating on a different level.
Systemic Consensing is highly suitable for collaboratively preparing decisions.
Systemic Consensing distinguishes two fundamental dimensions that can be assessed independently: support and resistance/acceptance . Together, they form a coordinate system with two axes that allows for a differentiated understanding of the quality and viability of group decisions.
Support reflects positive endorsement of a proposal. It is measured directly, for example by asking: “How much do you support this?”
Support indicates how strongly someone favors a given option. Low support may mean the person is indifferent — but it may also mean they have serious concerns.
Acceptance is the absence of rejection. It is not asked for directly, but
inferred from the resistance expressed:
“How much do you oppose this?”
“How strong is your resistance to this option?”
In other words, people can accept something they do not actively support — for example, for pragmatic reasons.
Support and acceptance are not the same. A person can support a proposal and at the same time feel strong resistance — depending on the context and perspective.
Example: “I’m happy for you that you’re moving to Italy — but I’m also sad because that means you’ll be far away.”
The two-axis model makes it possible to express and work with such ambivalences.
Prioritizing is not about making a single decision that will then be implemented, but about arranging elements in a sequence or order — for example, placing agenda items in the order in which they will be discussed, ranking goals according to their importance, or sequencing seminar content in a meaningful way. In these cases resistance is often low. In these cases, an agreement-based query is more useful.
Question: “How much do you want this suggestion to be prioritized?”
Scale: 0–10.
Results show the group's preference ranking.
The acceptance of a suggestion is the complement of its resistance.
A suggestion receives at whole 20 resistance points from 10 people.
20 / 100 = 20% resistance.
Acceptance = 100% – 20% = 80%.
Unlike majority voting, there are no structural losers.
Systemic Consensing is a powerful method for group decision-making.
It makes conflict potential visible and manageable.
By focusing on resistance—and addressing it transparently—it leads to
solutions that are viable and widely accepted.
SC strengthens democratic processes, encourages cooperation, and avoids the typical pitfalls of majority rule.