Before I answer the question, I think we need to agree upon what consensus means. I find it a word that is often misused at times. I’ll refer to a formal dictionary definition in a moment. First, let’s ponder. Does it mean unanimous and enthused? A reluctant unanimity? A simple majority?
I’ve been involved in many debates over the years with coaches and colleagues who, surprisingly, have different definitions of this fairly simple word.
To quote Merriam-Webster’s definition online, the word can mean ‘general agreement’ or ‘group solidarity in sentiment and belief’. OK, they snuck the word ‘solidarity’ into the second definition. For clarity, solidarity could be interchanged with ‘unity’. Now, for those who know me well, I had to go back and see if unity and unanimous had the same origin. Unanimous came from 2 Latin words, ‘unus’ meaning one and ‘animus’ meaning mind. So unanimous has a definition of ‘one mind’. Perfect sense. With unity, its origins date to several languages, but if I follow the Latin example, it does come from the same ‘unus’ word, meaning one. So, there is a commonality between unanimous and unity, but a key distinction as well -> ‘mind’. One vs One mind. I would say there is a subtle difference. Regardless, the general agreement term is one that I can readily support.
In my own opinion, I always viewed consensus as a clear majority. None of this 50%+1. Save that for politics. That is too divided in my mind. Once you have a group of people where 70%, 80%, or more are in agreement, I would consider that a consensus. Yes, I do leave some wiggle room in my definition. It’s my blog. 🙂
One of my most heated discussions involving the topic was 15 years ago. I was working with a coach who was adamant that consensus equated to unanimity. Being very focused on results and achieving goals, I found this a very high hurdle to overcome. What if you had an outlier, a natural dissenter who wouldn’t budge on a topic, no matter how the rest of the group felt, or the arguments put forward? My coach believed I had to continue trying to resolve the issue from multiple angles and perspectives to gain the full buy-in of the team.
I wholeheartedly disagree with that approach. Yes, it would be a wonderful world if you could achieve unanimity on all topics. But isn’t that a natural conflict with the world we live in? We create teams (in work and life) to allow for debate and different perspectives. We don’t all think the same, nor should we. This is what allows the world, humanity, and technology to grow and evolve. If we all thought and felt the same way, how uninteresting and stale would that be?
Let’s thrive in the debate, promote and encourage it whenever we can, but at a certain point, we need to draw a line and move on and make decisions. Otherwise, there is the risk we will flounder endlessly (paralysis not by analysis, but rather by pure indecision). And yes, decidophobia is a word.
The risk of not achieving unanimity (note I’ve left consensus behind)? Yes, it comes with the risk of losing buy-in from teammates or even a department. That’s where the role of leadership is to (1) look for the greater good, and (2) build bridges to support the greater cause, even if it isn’t the exact solution one hoped to implement.
Achieving consensus is very important, even critical, for success and happiness. You need a clear majority to be able to move goals and a vision ahead. But does it need to be unanimous? Certainly not.
At least not in my vocabulary.
Darren