Does consensus = compromise?
Conventional thinking touts the need to “get to consensus” as we make decisions. But is ‘consensus’ the right answer?
In concept, consensus makes a lot of sense.
If we have a team we’re working with, and we need to get a commonality of understanding as to what our goals should be, as well as how to get there, it follows that we should all agree on the end point as well as the path to get to that end point. If we all agree i.e. we gain consensus, we line up together and we do what’s needed to help us get there.
But what if we have divergent views on the end point? What if we disagree on the path to that end point? Will getting to consensus get us to the right place? To the optimal place?
I’m not so sure. The concern, of course, is that consensus may not get us to the right answer but the convenient one. Instead of getting us to the best result, it gets us to the most easily achievable, and those are not necessarily one and the same. In one, we don’t push ourselves towards excellence but we settle for mediocrity - an average of everyone’s else’s points of view.
This is the risk and this is what we must work to avoid.
Of course, I’m not suggesting we don’t account for other’s views or we don’t incorporate their ideas and suggestions into the final decision. We need their support to get to where we need to go.
So, open yourselves up: canvas ideas, discuss openly, argue vociferously as to what the right path should be. Debate and dialogue. Tear apart all options and think through all possibilities.
But at some point, the leader needs to take the call, point in the right direction and move the team expeditiously towards it. And consensus won’t (always) do that.
So, no, I don’t think we need to get to consensus.
But we do need to gain alignment - that is, the idea that we may not all agree fully but we do agree to get behind the final decision. That we will all give this strategy our best work and that we will focus on the final mission.
In that way, we don’t compromise.