Consensus Poisons Dynamic Options
A camel is a horse designed by consensus.*
Consensus distills dynamic options into dull decisions.
Consensus decisions:
Consensus works when issues are simple, deadlines don’t matter, everyone is an expert, and trust is high.
The pursuit of unanimity assumes the best decisions require harmony. Consensus doesn’t produce the best decision; it distills decisions to the safest option.
Complex situations have many solutions. People aren’t thinking when everyone agrees.
Disagreement is good:
A decision requires options. Apart from options, it’s a choice.
You haven’t found the best decision when everyone agrees. You found the easiest decision.
Never make decisions until there’s disagreement. Peter Drucker said, “The first rule in decision-making is that one does not make a decision unless there is disagreement.”
Practice constructive disagreement. You’re an obstructionist if all you do is disagree. Instead of saying, “I disagree,” say “I think it would be better if…”
What’s your positive suggestion? Don’t say, “No,” say, “Yes and.” Instead of, “That won’t work,” say, “What if we…”
5 dangers of consensus decision-making:
#1. Consensus shields the indifferent.
Sometimes consensus means people don’t care. They just agree. Don’t expect high performance from indifference.
#2. Consensus protects the irresponsible.
It’s not my fault. We all agreed. The timid hide behind consensus.
#3. Consensus silences dissent.
People usually agree with the boss. Team members avoid being obstacles. Power players subtly pressure people. Important perspectives are unheard.
#4. Consensus empowers the wrong people.
Team members with personal agendas block progress under the guise of offering helpful suggestions. Tip: Empower the people who are doing the work.
#5. Pressure to agree leads to helplessness.
“My voice doesn’t count anyway. Why bother?” When you don’t listen to people, they find destructive ways to be heard. The only powers of weakness include disruption and foot-dragging.
What are the pros and cons of consensus decision-making?
Here’s a post I wrote in 2014 in favor of consensus decision-making.
https://hbr.org/2020/09/7-strategies-for-better-group-decision-making
*Adapted from the anonymous quote, “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.”
In consensus decision-making, you encourage open dialogue where everyone shares their perspectives. The goal is to identify common ground, address disagreements, and develop a solution that everyone can support.
One common challenge is when people nod in agreement during the meeting but later criticize the plan. Effective consensus requires genuine commitment—not just agreement in the room, but follow-through in action.
A helpful mindset is “disagree but commit,” a concept popularized by Andy Grove & Jeff Bezos. Engage in debate, challenge ideas, and voice concerns. But once a decision is made, commit to supporting the plan and doing your part. No strategy succeeds if people refuse to execute it.
You went where I’m going next week. Seek input, explore options, and commit. Everyone doesn’t have to agree with everything. Everyone has to commit.
I’m with Paul on this – consensus is more than a product, rather a process that involves those different needs/perspectives/insights. I don’t feel consensus reduces empowerment nor reduces voice, the challenge is that the process of consensus building must live in a culture of processes that supports this approach.
Thanks David. Consensus works when conditions are right. I’ve also seen teams rehash the same conversation until stagnation sets in.
Next week, I’ll offer something for you to consider. We may be talking about the same thing.
You’re right. Perspectives make final decisions better.
However cross functional teams struggle to see the big picture. Team member advocate for what’s best for their area. Sometimes that helps other times they become protective obstructionists.
Thanks again. I look forward to your input on future posts.
I agree with Paul and David. Consensus is very much a dynamic process that requires digging in to cover all bases and make sure all voices are heard. It’s a significantly harder process than mere compromise or unilateral decision making.
To use the metaphor of the camel being a horse designed by consensus: yes – it’s an ugly beast by comparison, but it is ideally designed for its specific environment. It’s feet and joints are designed to traverse shifting sands. Its humps provide for survival in a harsh and unforgiving environment. It solves all of the very real problems for thriving in the desert. No, it’s not a good fit in New England, but it’s perfectly suited to the desert conditions in which it lives.
A problem solved through consensus may not be the prettiest solution, but it will be effective and address all concerns in the room when done properly. We confuse compromise with consensus all the time. Compromise requires giving up something where consensus allows room to take the best ideas presented and create something new and stronger. It requires setting ego aside to make room for other voices. It recognizes no one person may have all of the answers, but together we can find solutions.
Thanks Karen. Your comment will inform my post next week on this subject. Much appreciated.
Thanks Karen for standing up for the gangly camel. I always thought they got the short shrift by suggesting that a horse is a better version of a load bearing quadruped.
Perhaps the underlying concept is articulating the purpose of the conversation. If it is to get the meeting over asap, then whatever gets you to a reasonable decision is going to be good enough. If you want to design a solution that can carry loads across harsh climates reliably for thousands of years, it may take a while to even articulate the problems to be solved (joints that can handle shifting sands.)
Pretending that you are doing the latter, when you really want the former, leads to all the frustrations you outline. Both may be legitimate — just be honest (especially with yourself about your goal.)
“load bearing quadruped” — Love it! I think the point of the illustration is a team sets out to design a horse and ends up with a camel. Nothing wrong with camels unless you need a horse. All due respect to camels.
You bring up an important point about decision-making. What are you trying to accomplish. And who decides. Should a group make both decisions? Perhaps?
You also mention, who defines the problem. The strength of groups is they can generate options. If you want a list of problems, ask a group for one. If you want a list of possible solutions, ask a group.
It’s a pleasure.