On 17 Jun 1996 07:47:43 -0400 Barry Mallis wrote:
> From: Barry Mallis <bmallis@ns.markem.com>
> Date: 17 Jun 1996 07:47:43 -0400
> Subject: Consensus Decision-making LO7918
> To: learning-org@world.std.com
>
> Reply to: Consensus Decision-making
>
> I read this morning some postings about decision-making which make reference
> to consensus. Rol stated "Avoid consensus decision-making". He then proceeds
> in the next sentence to describe consensus decision-making. Perhaps I am
> missing a piece of this conversation. At my company I am facilitating monthly,
three-day classes for employees on High Performance Teams. In the module
about decision making, I stress the need for consensus decisions.
>
(Good stuff snipped here)
> o Consensus is reached when wll members can say they either agree with the
> decision, or at least they can live with it having "had their say," and
> feeling that they've been heard.
>
> o Consensus does not mean that there is 100% agreement that a given solution
> is the absolute best decision, but it does mean that everyone can agree to the
> benefits of the solution and its viability.
>
> o Consensus means that no one on the team feels ethically or professionally
> violated by the decision, and everyone agrees to support it.
>
> o Consensus means no winners and losers, only winners.
>
> Consensus comes down to two thoughts: as Andrew Grove of Intel believes, we
> have to agree to disagree; or, to put it another way, we disagree and commit.
>
> Consensus as defined herein has played a significant role.
The definitions that come from such notable institutions are fine. However, what I
think may be in the back of Rol's mind when he wrote 'avoid consensus
decision-making', is what many of the writers on 'wonderful' 'super' 'terrific' teams
are worried about. Namely, that 'consensus' suggest that there are 'trade-offs'
between members, who let their own feelings be sacrificed for 'the good of the team
as a whole'.
The problem is that it is difficult to determine whether 'consensus' has been used
in a 'positive' (for want of a better word] or a 'negative' (ditto) way. For example,
we know from the work of Janis et al, that a 'consensus' can lead to terrible
consequences of 'Groupthink' (i.e. Challenger disaster, Bay of Pigs etc.) . The
trouble is, it seems that these judgements are only made 'after the fact', and
hindsight is a wonderful thing.
What Barry should perhaps reflect upon, is whether it is possible to differentiate
between 'bad' consensus and the 'good' consensus that he envisages. For
example, he quotes the idea that there does not need to be 100% consensus, if so,
how much is 'enough'? does everyone need to agree to the decision 95%, or 80%,
OR 65%? Does it need everyone to agree even? Also, if 'everyone is a winner',
does that automatically mean that, for example, the organization benefits as a
whole, or that all participants are able to 'look good' i.e. even though the policy
failed, it is shown to have been a 'brave, bold decision', rather than a very risky
gamble?
Maybe Rol was alluding to something else, but Barry's handbook provides a very
good defintion, in theory at least
Andrew Rowe
AFM Dept.
University of Essex
(adrowe@essex.ac.uk)
--abdul-magid gadad <adrowe@essex.ac.uk>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>