Consensus is the Mind-killer
Move forward with consent-based decision making
“We do not need consensus.
Consensus is the mind-killer.
Consensus is the little-death that brings total inertia.
Consensus is fear of failing.
We will face that fear.
We will test and resolve objections to proceed.
Then we will step forward into the unknown and unknowable.”
- Litany Against Consensus
In organisations with a culture of consensus, and where there is a fear to act without less than total agreement, even bright and motivated individuals with a clear vision for positive change can feel the weight of inertia and uncertainty in how to make progress. Perhaps this is you?
In this environment the greater challenge may not be how to solve a problem, but in securing agreement to proceed from a wide (and potentially obscured) group of stakeholders. This challenge can be compounded when permission is required from a wide array of stakeholders with differing needs and agendas. In the absence of less than total agreement, the conclusion often becomes to hold off a little while longer, and do some more analysis. Kick that can down the road. Nothing changes.
Let’s be clear in this situation, the culture within this organisation fundamentally needs to change. That requires leaders with appropriate authority to change structure and process. This article however accepts that current reality, and suggests an approach for strong willed and passionate individuals within that context to make some headway. For other options search ‘how to update my CV’.
We can take inspiration and lessons from Sociocracy, a governance system that seeks to create psychological safety in organisations and uses consent decision making over consensus, between people who share common goals.
First align on the problem to be solved
Long ago the phrase ‘‘Don’t bring me problems — bring me solutions!” should have been consigned to the age of Management 1.0. As Frances Frei is quoted in this article, “Identifying problems can be a solo sport, but finding solutions rarely is.”
It is beneficial to first align on the problem to be solved with those who you are seeking to influence to support change. Agree also on the value and urgency of resolving it. If nobody else shares your perspective of the problem, or that it is of any importance to be resolved, then any effort on a potential solution is for now a wasted effort. Additional perspectives will likely grow understanding of the actual problem to be solved.
The Describing Organisational Drivers pattern provides a good framework for setting out a problem to be solved in terms of what’s happening and what’s needed: the current situation, effect, need, and impact.
Then co-create a proposal with those affected
Once the problem (the driver for change) is recognized as being true and sufficiently important to resolve, the next step is to determine who should be involved in proposing a way forward. The principle of Equivalence informs us that we should seek to include the people who will be affected by a decision or change.
Determine with your stakeholders who the right people to include are. You’ll likely already have a good idea of this yourself but invite recommendations. They should have expertise, insight, be able to add value and be as committed as you to finding an effective outcome.
With this group you can begin to form a proposal on what action to take. If you are dealing with complex change, especially where people may be involved, you might want to define an experiment to run.
The Decider Protocol from Live in Greatness can help you form agreements with this group of proposal tuners.
Check you are safe enough to proceed
You will need to communicate at least once with your stakeholders to present your proposal. This is where the greatest mindset shift occurs. Instead of asking if everybody present agrees, and needing a majority of yes’s to go ahead, ask “does anybody have any objections for me to proceed”?
Here we are proactively checking that the actions we are taking are safe enough to move forward with. If our hypotheses and assumptions are wrong, what will be the impact? We can help our colleagues answer this question with greater confidence by considering and presenting our own assessment of how we are safe to keep moving forward.
From a position of influence and power it is very easy to say ‘no’ or ‘I need more information to make a decision’. Analysis paralysis. By asking if there are objections to proceed, we are asking people to truly engage with what we are asking, and to qualify their objections with a reason. Saying ‘I object!’ without qualification isn’t enough. They need to be sufficiently transparent with what they know.
Differentiate between objections and Concerns
We also want to make a distinction between raising objections and concerns. Socicoracy 3.0 defines an objection as:
An objection is an argument — relating to a proposal, agreement, activity or the existing state of affairs — that reveals consequences or risks you’d rather avoid, or demonstrates worthwhile ways to improve.
Whereas a concern is defined as:
A concern is an assumption that cannot (for now at least) be backed up by reasoning or enough evidence to prove its relevance or validity to those who are considering it.
Resolve objections
Objections should be proactively resolved one at a time. As a good rule of practice, don’t leave a conversation without either resolving objections that were raised, or without a clear plan to do so in short order. This is done by discussing how to amend your proposal. Asking “what will it take to get you in?” can be a helpful approach to this. If you can do so, introduce “yes, and” response language with your stakeholders.
Determine when you will review
At anytime someone may elevate their concern to an objection; or form a new objection, especially as a situation develops. We ask if we are safe enough to proceed until the next time we meet. Therefore agree when and how often you will meet and communicate as you move forward.
Use Intent based language
David Marquet’s Turn the Ship Around provides a great example of intent-based leadership, and we can apply this spirit in communicating openly about how we plan to act. This creates ongoing opportunities for our colleagues to raise objections or concerns.
Here’s a simple template you can use and build on:
I intend to <take these actions> <at this time / on this date>. If you have any objections, concerns or opportunities to improve this plan please contact me by <this time>.
If you send this as an email or other message, remember to close your feedback loop. Checking a message was read and understood as you intended remains your responsibility.
The patterns from Sociocracy 3.0 and supporting communication and facilitation techniques shared here can work wonders in overcoming inertia. My recommendation is to start small, find opportunities to practice and build your confidence and competence with this approach. Remember that in the long run, a true culture shift is required to overcome a consensus culture. Perhaps with these techniques, you can become an agent and key proponent for that change.
