Consensus: none of us is as dumb as all of us
One of the things schools and other educational organisations spend a lot of time and energy thinking about is conflict.
Where children and young people are concerned, conflict is 'managed' through policies that set out clear expectations and processes for mediation, resolution or ejection. Where adults are concerned, conflict is 'managed' through 'difficult conversations'.
But in either case, because there's a tendency to prioritise stable, calm and controlled environments, the very idea of conflict can be quite troubling.
One result of this is the idealisation of consensus.
I often see this play out in my consultancy or team coaching when I'm observing or participating in a leadership team meeting or process, for example. It can sometimes seem that more value is placed on getting along than on making progress; on reaching an agreement rather than an optimal outcome. An idea is presented, pros and cons are discussed, and the idea is modified until a general agreement emerges that the decision or outcome is acceptable to all. Or the decision is deflected elsewhere to a committee that can fudge its own consensus in much the same way, just away from here. A shared sense of alignment is the stated aim, whilst harmony, the absence of winners or losers, and a complete lack of accountability is the measure.
The trouble is, whilst it's probably the easiest way to make a decision, it very often results in the worst possible outcome.
The classic illustration of why this is the case is the 'Abilene Paradox' (Harvey 1974):
'On a hot afternoon visiting in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a 50-mile trip to Abilene for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."
The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.
One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.
The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip that none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.'
It's quite easy to read that and ask how on earth a group of people could decide to do something that was in fact the very opposite of what they each individually wanted.
But on reflection, it becomes harder not to relate. In fact, by virtue of being human and spending time in groups, the scenario - and the ease with which we've found ourselves carried along on a process like the one described - is more familiar than we'd like to admit.
We've all felt the pressure to conform. We've all kept quiet to keep the peace. We've all viewed someone with a contrary or difficult opinion as a troublemaker or labelled them vexatious, even mendacious. We've all ceded our will, authority and expertise to someone in a position of power. And we've all found ourselves settling on a choice despite niggling doubts about its suitability. This is what is commonly known as groupthink, though the phrase underplays its complexity.
According to Harvey*, the Abilene Paradox comprises five elements:
First, a mutual agreement emerged in the group that the current situation was not acceptable (or rather that an alternative situation was more acceptable), despite the fact that some individuals were quite conscious of their satisfaction with the status quo.
Secondly, there was ineffective communication within the group when several members marginalised their own (and others') individual thoughts and expressed enthusiastic support for the proposal because they assumed others desired it.
Thirdly, there were several vocalisations of group sentiment arising from inaccurate assumptions, incorrect interpretations or denied acknowledgements of the 'signals' given by other members.
Fourthly, there's the decision-maker’s post-hoc reflection on what happened, usually prompted by confusion or frustration; “Why did we do this?” or “How can we justify our decision to others?”
The fifth and final element is the admission of defeat by the group leader to poor decision making in order to avoid making similar decisions in the future.
Intricacies aside, what arose in the scenario above was an illusion of agreement rather than agreement itself. By silencing or marginalising opposing views and alternative possibilities, the group created a fantasy of consensus that overrode the possibility of actual consensus.
Consensus-based decision making is, in most cases, just a failure to commit to the difficult task of managing agreement. A desire to not rock the boat results all too often in an outcome that no-one would have opted for as an individual, and which may even be against their individual and collective best interests.
However, there are several habits you can adopt to mitigate things to an extent, and make a shift towards more effective forms of decision-making. The first is to broaden the discussion by specifying that no-one is allowed to speak a second time until everyone who wishes to do so has spoken once.
And the second is to allow - or better, encourage - disagreement. Ask people to get stuck in. Get stuck in yourself. See diversity of opinion and perspective as a strength and revel in the richness and fine-tuning it brings to a debate. Celebrate both sides of a split vote, and focus on integrating a team around a majority, particularly a fine one.
The complexity of your context these days means that most decisions - and certainly the more important ones of strategic consequence - need to draw upon the whole organisation's reserves of experience, wisdom and insight, and this requires leadership teams and boards to tolerate conflict and disagreement, and to recognise consensus as the collective fallacy it is.
*Harvey, J. B. (1974). "The Abilene paradox: the management of agreement". Organizational Dynamics. 3: 63–80.
Thanks and apologies to despair.com for inspiring the title