Seeking advice rather than consensus?

Are decisions made by consensus great or average? Should we create processes to seek advice rather than trying to take into consideration all the provided feedback while operating under the assumption that all participants will commit to the final decision?

We could structure each decision-making process as having two actors: 1. the decision maker 2. a focused group of advisors (some with veto rights). This process would converge towards a decision in multiple iterations, with information being shared in each iteration via different channels.

The decision maker is responsible for incorporating feedback from each iteration and within a well-defined time boundary propose a conclusion. Each individual piece of feedback may influence or not the outcome and participants acknowledge that. The process is successful if the group commits to the end-result.

While applying this process an organization would transition from uncertainty to certainty with a strong alignment from team members and in a timely manner.

Could a large organization operate in this mode? Could this improve the culture? Could it reduce friction when making controversial decisions?

The main reason why I like this way of reframing the process is because consensus could be interpreted as an attempt to make everyone happy, but what an organization really needs is a process for making effective decisions that move things forward, towards and global optimum.

What do you think? What aspect of your company culture contributes the most to effective decision making?