The need to get people in an organization to pull together comes out often in discussions about communication.

Let's think of it as getting to consensus, to roll a bunch of similar issues into one ball. Further, let's think of getting to consensus as a process. That is, something that happens as the result of a series of deliberate actions on our part.

We start the process by analyzing the current situation - how far from consensus do we now stand? Do we have embittered, untrusting people in the group? Or are we at the other end of the spectrum, with everyone nearly in agreement? We'll call this the diagnostic stage.

That means we have to listen, rather than talk. Sure, we're probably anxious to get going and to convert them to our way of thinking right away. But, before that we need to let them talk, and we need to hear them.

That means our listening has to be real and focused. No preparing responses or rebuttals while the other person speaks, just listening and absorbing what they say, both explicitly and implicitly (through body language, for example).

After we complete our diagnosis, we get our turn to talk or otherwise communicate. If the people with whom we want consensus are generally hostile or unwilling to listen, we'll either need to be very patient or prepared to shock them. Shocking means challenging, confronting their assumptions and the status quo.

On the other hand, if everyone pretty much agrees with us already, we'll approach them much more softly. In other words, we won't rock the boat much.

A key ingredient of our communication will be to explain what's in it for them. Obviously, we see the benefits of consensus, for ourselves and for them. But, do they see the beneficial consequences? The need to explain the benefits is often overlooked in our rush to communicate.

Let's lay out the advantages and the disadvantages for them clearly. And, yes, tell them about the disadvantages as well as the advantages. By doing so, we'll increase our credibility. We might even learn something by writing the advantages on one side of a page and the disadvantages on the other.

After we've made our case, we'll try to stimulate feedback. Try to get a sense of how our message was received and what response it got. Did they respond the way we expected? Did a consensus begin to emerge?

If not, we need to start the process over again, with a new diagnosis. And, we'll basically reiterate the process. But, this time, put even more time into, and emphasis on, their assumptions and expectations. If the process doesn't work, it's because they didn't find enough benefits in our earlier communication.

In the end, consensus is always about them. And, to get them to go along with our plans for change, we need to be as conscious of their needs as we are of our own.

Summarizing, think of consensus as the end point of a process, rather than something we can immediately organize. That process starts with analysis and listening, then responds to what we heard in the listening phase.

Robert F. Abbott writes and publishes Abbott's Communication Letter. Learn how you can use communication to help achieve your goals, by reading articles or subscribing to this ad-supported newsletter. An excellent resource for leaders and managers, at: http://www.communication-newsletter.com