In order to encourage engagement, promote an inclusive culture and gain the buy-in critical to executing decisions, most contemporary organizations operate from the decision-rule of Consensus. Good leaders understand the value of bringing people along with a decision and how important it is for team members to influence the decisions that impact them. Building consensus around a decision or strategy is now expected in organizations.
Consensus can be a powerful standard for making quality decisions and encouraging vigorous execution. Working from a consensus model fosters collaboration and improves teamwork. Unfortunately, in many organizations it also prevents decisions from ever happening. Consensus decision-making can sometimes take too long, allow self-interested colleagues to delay or stonewall decisions, and encourage special interests to throw a wrench into the wheels of progress.
In workplaces where consensus decision-making strangles the lifeblood of the organization, leaders include too many stakeholders in the process. As a result, they spend weeks gathering views and opinions. Those who have been asked for their view believe they have a seat at the table to advocate, further slowing down an already clumsy process. And with so many varied views and opinions, finding common ground and getting everyone to agree with a decision is nearly impossible. Decisions languish, waiting to be made, but never have the full support of consensus to be validated. So, nothing happens except more talk and no action.
When important decisions don’t get made, opportunities are lost, team members become paralyzed waiting for change, and frustration sets in. It doesn’t have to be this way. The best leaders and organizations avoid the pitfalls of a never-ending consensus process with a few simple rules.
Someone must be able to break the logjam of indecision when building consensus doesn’t lead to a decision. Naming a Decision-Maker for every major decision is key. The Decision-Maker plays a special role. At a predetermined point of time, if the decision has not reached consensus, the Decision-Maker will listen to the arguments for and against the decision and then make it. Setting the clock to reasonable time by which to reach consensus and then moving the call to the Decision-Maker when the team is unable to reach a conclusion unlocks the snarl.
Identifying a Decision-Maker comes with additional advantages. When team members know a decision will be pried from their hands if they don’t reach consensus by a specific date, they typically find the urgency to establish common ground before they run out of time. Those with an agenda to stand in the way of a decision lose their power to do so. But best of all, decisions the organization can act on finally get made.
As Teddy Roosevelt was fond of saying: “In any moment of decision, the best you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.” Consensus decision-making should never lead to nothing. A designated Decision-Maker prevents a bad process from holding an organization hostage.
