Acronym

In a previous post, I put "Consensus bad" as part of the title. I wanted to expand on that idea a little more. There's nothing inherently evil about consensus. It's not something you need to work to avoid.

But consensus should be a warning. It should make you pause for a minute and question how you reached it. Let me explain.

Consensus usually comes about in one of four ways, two of which are positive and two of which are negative.

First, the powerful overcome the less powerful without regard to the merits of the arguments being made. Those without power go along with the decision. Why? Any number of reasons. Some will see it as a duty. Some will feel like they weren't heard or that the powerful had already made up their minds and there was no argument to be made. Some will lack self-esteem. There's no question conclusions reached in such a manner would not be as good as they could be for an organization.

Second, decisions get watered down to appease all sides of a debate. This one can be tricky, as negotiating and give-and-take can certainly be a part of good decision making. However, decisions reached this way are unlikely to be bold. They are likely to be safe and inoffensive; they will have low risk and low reward. Not inherently evil, but if it's the dominant way decisions are made in an organization, then the organization is headed for mediocrity and, ultimately, obsolescence.

A third way a group might reach consensus is that the better argument wins over all decision makers. It's pretty straightforward, and as long as everyone in the group feels like the process has been fair, that all opinions have been heard, and they don't feel pressured to vote with the crowd, then such a consensus is positive.

Finally, a group can devise, consider, and adopt an entirely new option as a result of deliberations. This is the best possible outcome of group decision making. By definition, it's outside the box; it's "other" on a true-false quiz; it's the road less traveled. It doesn't guarantee the decision is right, but I think it does guarantee that the group used the best possible decision-making method.

Two thoughts to leave you with.

First, I'm sure you spotted the corollary between the positive and negative kinds of consensus. There are only shades of difference between the powerful charging forward with their way and an argument that wins over individuals. Likewise, there are only shades of difference between negotiating a decision and developing an entirely new alternative. That's why if you do have consensus on an action, it should be a warning. It should make you go back and analyze how it was reached--was it a positive or negative process.

Second, mandating consensus will most assuredly lead to it, which means many of your decisions (and I'd say most of them) are likely to be the result of bad consensus, and your organization will suffer as a result.