What is the quality of the decisions in the project? This is a key question and a self- managing team that acts on eye level needs a very good answer here. It needs the ability to come to smart decisions quickly and effectively, even though everyone is allowed to have a say. This problem is well known and various approaches have emerged over time, some of which work better and some worse. At some point, four Austrians developed consensing (SK principle), which is currently changing the future of decision-making. In recognition of this method, we have adopted Systemic Consensing for NVC-plus and have been able to accentuate the method through the possibilities that NVC-plus offers us. This gives us the answer to how a team being the boss can come to very good decisions, which means that a team gets its intertwined potential into the joint decisions. However, as with all NVC-plus tools, every team is free to use consensing whenever it suits them, or to use other tools that work better for them at the time.

The aim of consensing is to make the best decision in groups, teams and communities or to develop these further in the decision- making process. It starts with the search for proposed solutions. The proposal that generates the least rejection in the team wins - i.e. not the proposal with the most yes votes or the proposal with the fewest no votes (yes-no duality), but the proposal with the least no potential. The No votes are weighted for this purpose.

The extent of the group's overall resistance is therefore determined for each individual solution. The proposal with the least resistance is successful.

Advantages • Quick decision • Involves everyone • Creative solution finding • Even reserved people can participate well Preparation - clarify the process • Card poll? Consensing with an app? With a tool? Anonymously? Who writes down, who moderates, who counts? • Resistance scale from 0-5 / 0-10? • How many rounds do we want to vote? (2, 3, 4?) • Has everyone understood how consensing works? Test run with harmless task? 1 . What exactly is the problem - formulated as a questionThis question should not be answerable with yes or no (i.e. do not formulate a decision question!) 2 . As with brainstorming, the suggestions are not criticized. 3 . How much resistance does each suggestion generate for whom? Each suggested solution is rated by everyone with resistance points. Zero points = 0 resistance or no problem with the solution. 5 (or 10 if you prefer) points = total resistance or you do not support this solution. 4 . Which solution has the least resistance? Y ou add up the resistance points for each solution and compare the results. 5 . Everyone can discard their solution, adapt it, extend it or leave it as it is. You can discuss what the resistance is based on in order to improve the proposed solution or present it more clearly. Then a second and possibly a third round begins. In these rounds, the proposed solutions mature quickly and adapt optimally to the group.

For NVC-plus consensing, you do not look for different proposed solutions to a problem and then agree on them, as is usual in classic consensing. Instead, you define the problem and consider which parameters each solution would have to fulfill in order for the solution to be a solution. For example, if we are looking for a restaurant for lunch, then this restaurant would have to: • Be open at lunchtime • Be accessible within 10 minutes • Also offer something vegetarian. The problem is therefore only seen as a framework for different utopias/visions. These are sought for NVC-plus consensus, listed and then consensualized as usual. In the process, the utopias/visions mature and in some cases combine with other utopias/visions. The advantage of this is that the result is not just a solution to a problem, but a positive, vital flow within the team.