11. Systemic Consensing: How we make decisions at UNO.TEAM that everyone can support

There is one method that is particularly close to my heart when we talk about genuine grassroots democratic decision-making—whether in cooperatives, sociocracy, or community-based projects.

It is often assumed that good ideas must come from the English-speaking world. However, this specific voting procedure was developed in the 1980s and 90s by two Austrian mathematicians and software developers right here in the German-speaking region.

(Note: In the original dictation, I misspoke briefly and referred to it as "systematic consuming" or "concentrating." Thanks to my digital sparring partner, we are correcting that right here: the method is officially called Systemic Consensing.)

The problem with conventional majority voting

In traditional systems, we usually vote "yes" or "no." But there is a huge catch: a narrow majority dictates the outcome for the minority. In the end, the minority is forced to live with a compromise they do not agree with at all. This creates frustration, division, and blocks teamwork.

With Systemic Consensing, we turn the tables completely. We do not measure approval, but collective resistance.

Why? Because the option that meets with the least resistance in the group is automatically the one that comes closest to being accepted by everyone. It is not about who shouts "yes" the loudest, but about which solution is the most tolerable for everyone involved.

How the method works in practice (0 to 10 points)

The process is incredibly simple and can be explained in four steps:

1. Define the problem & gather options: All conceivable solutions to a problem are placed on the table as equals.
2. Measure resistance (the point system): Each person in the team has a maximum of 10 points per option to express their internal resistance:
   • 0 points means: "I have absolutely no objections to this proposal. I fully support it."
   • 10 points means: "I have maximum resistance. This option is completely unacceptable to me."
   • The values in between (1 to 9) allow for a fine gradation of personal discomfort.
3. Calculate the points: For each option, the resistance points of all participants are added together. This results in a total sum of collective resistance.
4. The decision: The option with the lowest sum of resistance points wins. It has the highest level of acceptance within the team.

Why we use this at UNO.TEAM and in the Reallabor

I am certain that Diana Osterhage also knows and uses this method. A few years ago, she co-founded a new nationwide political party (which she later left with her partner) and worked there using these grassroots democratic approaches.

For us at UNO.TEAM it is clear: We will gradually introduce systemic consensus-building and continue to promote it in our courses. It will be a permanent, indispensable part of our Reallabor Leipzig-Plagwitz project.

If we want to build a strong, solidary collective that resists neoliberal competitive thinking and rigid hierarchies, we must also learn to make decisions on equal footing. Systemic consensus-building provides us with exactly the tool for this—without winners and losers, but through mutual consensus.

‍