Systemic Consensing
group decision-making principle
Systemic Consensing (German: Systemisches Konsensieren) also known as Systemic Consensus is a consensus-oriented group decision-making method. The principle behind the method is that minimizing participant resistance should be the highest concern when making decisions. The method asks participants to score all proposals—including the status quo—according to how much they oppose them, and selects the proposal with the lowest score. The method is equivalent to the better-known score voting.
History
According to Siegfried Schrotta and Erich Visotschnig, the development of a method with students in Graz began in 1982 and was resumed in 2002, leading to the 'Systemic Consensing Principle' and a refined approach. Over the course of their work the pair have published four books, made a website, initiated an online tool, founded an institute, and established a network of trainers.
Principle
The Systemic Consensing Principle is to come as close to consensus as possible by minimizing resistance. Resistance is taken to mean opposition or unhappiness towards a proposal. This is justified on ethical and practical foundations.
Ethically, allowing people to express resistance is seen as fundamental to their human dignity.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Systemic Consensing” as group decision-making principle. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as group decision-making principle. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Nov 21, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q111950269. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1982 and 2002.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Systemic Consensing”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Systemic Consensing primary sources, Systemic Consensing archive and Systemic research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Systemic Consensing”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Systemic Consensing” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.