5 Reasons Why Consensus Sucks
I’m growing more and more convinced that the worst thing an organization can do is try to reach a consenus about something. Think government. Think church committee meetings. Think declining big business.
On the surface, reaching a consensus seems like a positive thing because it means people have agreed to move in the same direction. That’s a good thing isn’t it?
Actually, I’m not convinced that’s the case. For example, here are:
5 Reasons Why Consensus Sucks
- It embraces the status quo. Change, whether positive or not, is not human nature. We would prefer for things to remain the way they are today. So, when people get together to discuss the possibility of doing something a little different in the future, it’s normal for the majority to avoid making changes.
- It gives the malcontents an equal voice in your decision. Reaching consensus gives everyone a voice at the table. When that happens, even the negative, bitter folks that don’t really embrace the vision have the opportunity to pull the rest of the group away from what could really be the most desirable outcome.
- It short circuits the radical ideas that lead to the biggest breakthroughs. The big, bold ideas won’t see the light of day. Yet those are the ideas that could potentially lead to the best innovations. Consensus brings people back to the middle where the majority approves but mediocrity reigns.
- It leaves unresolved conflict on the table. At the opposite ends of a decision are distinct opinions which, if left unresolved, could potentially lead to division. Consensus prevents tough conversations from happening. It gives people the freedom to jump to compromise without engaging a healthy debate.
- It discourages people from dreaming big dreams. Want to neuter the creative-thinkers and entrepreneurs and visionaries in your organization? Force them to reach consensus with the rest of the crowd. These are the people that make you uncomfortable. They can drive you crazy. That’s OK. They’ll just go work someplace else if you keep forcing them to compromise their dreams.
What do you think? Do you agree? Or, have you actually seen consensus work? What would you add or delete from the list?
Let’s try to reach a consensus on whether or not consensus sucks.
I can say that I’ve seen each one of these have a huge impact on moving an organization forward. From my experience the only time consensus matters is when the outcome doesn’t really matter. Some issues require consensus, but big change, or following through on vision are almost always hindered by it.
The absence of conflict is a scary place for a team of innovators. It could indicate a couple things: Either your leader has created a culture void of freedom or liberty to speak your mind, or it is an indication of mass indifference.
What do you think about elder government? Help or hindrance, does Newspring function under the consensus of an Elder Board?
Tony,
This is a great post! I used to work in radio promotions and marketing. Consensus has killed the adventure and magic of radio.
Dude… Tony… you hit the nail on the head! You posted this at such a relevant time in my personal situation. Thanks buddy!
hit this out of the park… every time you start looking for a consensus there are good things that get shelved, besides, you can never please everyone anyway
Consensus works in our leadership. The part that you may be missing is the Consensus-Building piece. If there is a leader or two who does not agree with the direction we have a process to reach consensus. Simply expressed, it’s built around the question ‘What would you need to see/have/include in order to be in agreement?’ This leads to some great conversation and I’ve seen the original direction or decision improved most every time. There are times when the single ‘hold-out’ wins the day because they had a perspective that none of the rest of us did. Without working towards consensus (and it is work!), we would make more silly, visionless decisions. The refining process refines!
I would add this: You’ve got to have a leadership culture that welcomes conflict. If conflict is seen as the creative element that makes things better, you can work by consensus. If your group avoids conflict and sweeps things under the rug, then yes, your point visionary person needs to run the show because consensus will s u c k in that leadership group. Later!
I’m on Neil’s page. Consensus works for us and primarily because we embrace conflict/tension. I don’t see how consenus, by it’s nature, causes any of those 5. I think people who lack healthy relationship as a value can wreck any system of government.
What we say here is that consensus doesn’t mean “unanimity” it means that the group has worked through an issue and as a group decided to take a course of action together.
Majority means we have winners and losers. Dictatorship means, no matter how benign, bitterness will grow. Consensus means that for the good of the family we can agree to disagree and support one another 100%, taking 100% of the blame or giving God 100% of the credit.
Consensus means everyone getting behind the best driver, not everyone driving. It means letting the cooks cook, the singers sing and the painters paint with everyone supporting them.
Here, if you a part of a consensus and then go out and express your contrary position to those outside the process you’ve just eliminated yourself from participating in the leadership team.
5 reasons why consensus is valuable in Kingdom living
1. It does not embrace the status quo. It seeks to make changes only for the purpose of improvement, not for change’s sake, or to be seen, or to keep up with the Jones’. Change is human nature – we are constantly refining, improving, letting things go that are unproductive, embracing new technology, products, learning new skills. Consensus keeps what is best and does not reject past excellence in favor of new mediocrity.
2. It gives the malcontents an equal voice in making decisions. Striving to reach consensus gives everyone a voice at the table. When that happens, even the negative, bitter folks realize that they are loved, respected and their opinion is actually valued. To reach consensus is then the most desirable outcome upon which all agree. It is not an us versus them decision.
3. It does not short-circuit the radical ideas that lead to the biggest breakthroughs. The big, bold ideas are then examined by all in the light of day and the light of God’s Word! Those ideas could potentially lead to the best innovations. Consensus brings people back to the point where all approve and the best decision for the situation is made.
4. It leaves unresolved ideas or issues on the table until further thought, prayer and heart searching are done by all. The opposing opinions know that everything will be re-examined and no decision will be reached until all are in consensus, which leads to unity and harmony. Reaching consensus allows and encourages the tough conversations and healthy debate because everyone is respected and no one is overruled by the most power-hungry and intimidating voice.
5. It encourages people to dream big dreams! Creative-thinkers, entrepreneurs and visionaries have a safe forum in which to express their creativity. All people matter. Consensus ensures that everyone comes to the table with humility, love and a heart for unity and the best decision for what needs to be done.
I couldn’t agree more.
We embrace the dictatorship. Leaders should lead. The rest of us offer our opinion but at the end of the day, if we’re not the pastor, we aren’t the ones God called to lead church.
If Christ sought consensus from his key leaders he never would have gone to the cross. Just ask Peter.
I think the main point of consensus is to create buy-in. Now, if people can follow the leader without buy-in, then perhaps you don’t need consensus.
Consensus is also used to guard against power abuse. It is boring and slow, but it creates some safety for the mass against the ultra-bold leader.
Each decision making style has its own problem. As long as we human are still plaqued with sin, our decision making style will be tainted no matter which style.
If by consensus you mean “unanimous consent” I would agree – consensus sucks. Here’s why. With that kind of decision-making machinery in place, one “no” can outweigh a dozen “yeses.” One nay can delay. Unanimous consent is good. It is desirable. And it would work IF church leadership teams (elder boards, etc) were populated by cherubim.
Neil, Brian, and Bumble get my vote. Your posts on “mistakes” applies here too Tony. It may not work in your situation, but works great in another’s.
For me, consensus amongst the masses is not something I see in scripture. But, I do see it in action at times amongst the leadership after Christ ascended. Even then, there was a spirit of “mutual submission” that was modeled. At times the Apostles would defer to one guy if they did not all reach concensus.
There’s no blanket solution to this one. Church leader’s that write leadership training materials should steer clear of trying to “formulize” this particular subject in my opinion.
Totally agree. I think it was Nancy Ortberg who said, “Compromise is mutually agreed upon mediocrity.”
“Consensus negates leadership.” – Margaret Thatcher
Of course Margaret couldn’t have become the “Iron Lady” if she didn’t have the consensus of her party – that’s how parliamentary government works (or doesn’t).
>If Christ sought consensus from his key leaders he never would have gone to the cross. Just ask Peter.
We can agree, can’t we, that Jesus is in a different category? The ministry of Jesus had nothing to do with modern business-style “leadership”. There are definitely some principles we can take away, but the idea of ruling like a monarch isn’t necessarily one of them. No matter how great your pastor is, his role isn’t analogous to Jesus.
We should look at the scriptures in context, acknowledging that they don’t prescribe a certain form of church government. However, if you want a better passage as an example, what about Paul and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. It certainly seems to me that consensus was reached. Contrarily, Paul disagreeing with Barnabus about John Mark seems to be more of the non-consensus model (though it seems that Paul relented from that hard stance later in life).
These are much better examples to use to base a case on consensus or non-consensus than saying that the disciples would have held Jesus back from the cross. That’s an analogy that doesn’t work in this context.
Wow Tony, I think these points are right on target. I can relate as I’ve experienced all this first-hand. It brought to mind a book I read a while back called Ten Faces of Innovation by Tom Kelley of IDEO. http://www.tenfacesofinnovation.com/
Thanks for this provocative, inspiring post!
Okay, call me “goodie two shoes” but must the word “suck” be used? You are insightful and an awesome writer. Without doubt, this is an extremely thought provoking subject and will generate some very good discussions. Do you feel that there were no other choices other than “suck?” I really do enjoy your site and this is minor in the overall spectrum of things. The word “suck” just strikes me as unappealing.
Is it really appropriate for a Christian to use the word “suck”? The use of the word suck in this context has come from an oral sex act. It’s use has become so common place today that we don’t often think about it, but that IS the original context. It would be about the same as you saying “5 Reasons Why Consensus is FXXXXed Up”. There is no difference! More importantly, what does scripture say about this? Eph. 5:4 “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place.”
At first I resonated with this because of my background in a baptist church where the congregation truly believed that everything needed consensus. That sucks for all the reasons you listed and I couldn’t agree more.
However, there is another side to this. The ministry where I serve does everything by consensus, but the context is teams. We empower teams to do the work of ministry and so I guess you could say there is consensus even if it is between two or three people.
The final factor in this equation is servant leadership. Servant leadership is everything when it comes to this.
When you combine two of our values, Teamship and Servant Leadership, and add to that our grace orientation it is a powerful and successful combination.
If consensus means waiting to move until everyone is on board, you better keep the group very small and expect to move slow.
I once had a lot of dealings with a man who was a U.S. Navy Captain. He had a wonderful leadership perspective that I try to both use and promote. He told me, “When I have a staff meeting we have 13 voices and one vote- mine. I would be stupid NOT to listen to my staff, but in the end, I am the one who is responsible, and I am the one held accountable. I will listen to all the advice I can find, but in the end, I will make the decisions.”
Personally, I have seen consensus work at our church most recently with what was a major decision. It’s a method that I like but Tony is right about it giving malcontents a voice. The challenge becomes when there are dissenters, how do you go about coming to a consensus if those people won’t compromise? Because in fact, that is what they have to do to keep from holding things up. If consensus is the desired approach, maybe a church uses a vote when consensus stalls.
Hey Tony. I would agree with you. If the goal is consensus, I was say it sucks. If the goal is an opportunity to create buy-in then it probably doesn’t. The key wording in that is “providing an opportunity”
Point number 2 is a big amen.
How I have seen this play out, really has to do with a person’s DNA. How they are wired, view things and process ideas. Some are very visionary and some are more pragmatic and analytical. When the green light sessions are going they need to stay that way. Often times the more pragmatic person see’s that time as a time to think through the details. They have missed the point. Those who are more detailed in their gifting are absolutely needed but their gifting needs to come in into play at a different time.
Great post.
I totally agree with what you have said….so why ask our opinion on it? :)
Still waiting on what tony thinks about elder government…
sorry. i missed it. what was the question about elders?
Agree. Change nothing. I may frame this and post it on the wall in my office.
If someone wants to ‘own’ an idea without modification then consensus is certainly an obstacle. If someone wants to claim the role of ‘visionary’ then consensus is miserable. Jesus urged Love and Unity in the Spirit. I Corinthians 13:5 “Love does not insist on it’s own way”. Question is, Does the Spirit provide the vision or do people? If people do then I guess they need to insist on their own way. If the Spirit does then perhaps we must have more faith in His ability to manage things. Consensus works most smoothly with people with more spiritual maturity. That is not an excuse to sideline it in more diverse situations. It just means that when more is on the line that mature folks (like Elders) need to work out the details.
What is the biblical pattern for leadership? Some key principles emerge: We sheep need shepherding (sheep don’t graze by consensus), even Moses needed help (so he appointed leaders over thousands, 100s, 10s, etc. to exercise leadership on his behalf–he didn’t call a big congregational meeting), by consensus the Israelites made and worshiped a golden calf, etc.
Thanks for posting these. Consensus, it seems, usually happens by way of coercion. That is, dissenting voices are forced to go along with the “will” of the majority rather than voice their opinion to the end. That, unfortunately, allows the majority voice to ignore the dissenting one. All they have to say is, “We disagree.” Consequently, the debate over an issue is never thorough, and that is tragic.
Tye, you’re use of esoteric terms like “Teamship and Servant Leadership” confuses the uninitiate… like me. :)
Steve, “It just means that when more is on the line that mature folks (like Elders) need to work out the details.” That seems like a bit of a stretch to me. How do we get from placing everything in the hands of a few human leaders to relying on the Holy Spirit?
Uh-oh, Andrew… you said the ‘P’ word: “Some key PRINCIPLES emerge…”
Tony, I’m guessing that since “consensus” sucks, there is a specific alternative you are thinking of? Could you make another post detailing this alternative and explain why it would suck less?
Hi Tony
We have used Consensus (Modified Consensus) in our church for the last 5 years and the Lord has blessed us with GREAT SUCCESS. I agree completely with Neil Johnston comments made on your blog Jan.16th. If done properly consensus does work very well, the key is learning how to do it, as Neil says, there is a set of consensus-building decision-making steps that is part of a sound process. In fact we changed our whole structure and decision-making process 5 years ago after a number of years of bad decisions, split-decisions 51/49 votes, and little real progress using Robert’s Rules of Order, that caused us to be more divided then unified for many years.
As I stated before, we moved completely away from a multiple board system (7 boards with 7-8 people per board) to a one board Leadership Team model of 12 members plus our senior pastor, that use Modified Consensus. As a result we have been able to achieve, with God’s blessing, many effective major changes in the past 5 years, far more then the proceeding 10 years.
Consensus has worked very well for us; in fact I would say our consensus process has actually achieved the opposite of your “5 Reasons It Sucks”…
1. It has allowed us to Embrace Change in a positive way, as a body of believers who are more forward looking now then ever before.
2. Yes, it does give everyone a voice and this has been a good thing, allowing the discontent to be heard, acknowledged, and understood in an atmosphere of care and concern, thereby helping everyone consider all sides of a issue.
3. Radical ideas that lead to the GREAT and AMAZING breakthroughs have been our story. Radical ideals and thinking outside the box have been encouraged.
4. If done properly, consensus should never leaves unresolved conflict on the table, instead it allows it to be flushed out, clarified and discussed, so it can be resolved.
5. It encourages people to have BIG DREAMS FOR GOD. Our creative-thinkers, entrepreneurs and visionaries are encouraged to share their ideas because everyone knows that they will have an opportunity to be heard in a non-judgmental, accepting environmental.
I got to say, that none of your “5 Reasons…” have any validity in our experiences of using our consensus-building process. I hope you have an opportunity to see consensus work, as it should.
Excellent post! I’ve been trying to get these ideas across to European church leaders for years. This is one of the reasons the Church in Europe is so impotent.
Good Cowboy?
In 1 Peter 5:4, Peter refered to Jesus as the “Chief Shepherd”, which means that Pastors are merely “Under Shepherds” to the Chief Shepherd. Pastors are to be leading their flocks not Cowboys driving them like cattle.
One problem that Pastors may have in leading their flocks is that many of their members run organizations far larger than the Churches that their Pastors are pastoring. Many of their members too have a heart for God, and have gathered ideas from businesses and other ministries that they have been a part of.
During the first big conference in Acts 15, the leader James welcomed ideas from EVERYONE (verse 22-the whole church), and then finally made a “common sense” decision(verse 22 – seemed good). I’m glad that James listened to Peter, Paul, and the whole church BEFORE the decision was finally made.
Great leaders are open to opposing ideas and create an environment that encourages them. Just because a person has NO Seminary or Church tenure doesn’t mean that they can’t have a better idea. Remember that Jesus never had any FORMAL training, but he knew God. (John 7:15-17) In fact, most of the original church leaders were uneducated (Acts 4:13). If Jesus, Peter, and James, showed up at your door with an idea, would you cut them off before hearing them out?
We ARE warned by Paul to avoid people who like strife (Romans 16:17), however, we should encourage opposing points of view. Remember the heart of the Chief Shepherd is to lose no one needlessly. (Matthew 18:14) The first church leader James said that the wise are “open to reason” (James 3:17). WE must be too!
I’d say it depends on the context.
In some situations I’M the malcontent. I refuse to be content with a church that doesn’t reach people.
In some situations the new innovation is really bad – like moving away from our core doctrine or making sure our services are only for people just like us.
It is certainly the case though, that consensus not not ALWAYS or necessarily a good thing, and is often overvalued.
Thanks, Tony (for the re-run).