If you prefer to listen to this post, an audio version is available here…

---

A recent Association for Talent Development study found the number one leadership skill executives say all employees should develop is communication (93%) followed by decision-making (84%). Similarly, employees said the leadership skill they are most interested in developing is communication (63%) with decision-making again in the number two spot at 59%. I’ve written here before about communication, so today I chose to focus on decision-making – or at least one aspect of it that is a real pet peeve of mine and that I hope helps you think a little differently about it.

For nearly a decade, I designed and facilitated leadership development programs for an agency of the U.S. federal government, and participants throughout the agency, whether in the U.S. or in the larger overseas workforce, told me their decision-making was “consensus driven.” As I asked questions and dug deeper to understand this more, I discovered that what they really meant was they were “unanimous-driven,” holding out for full agreement on decisions. What they got, though, was people agreeing publicly while privately passively or actively working against the decision because they didn’t actually support it.

This phenomenon isn’t unique to that agency. I’ve encountered it repeatedly in many organizations over the years, including as recently as last week when I was presenting my company’s findings to an international board that engaged us to help inform their decision-making process on a particular issue. Over lunch, the board president lamented that she didn’t think consensus could be reached that afternoon, so they would have to “go with the decision that as many as people as possible can agree on.” I sat in somewhat stunned silence when what I wanted to do was shout, “that IS consensus!”

Depending on the dictionary you consult, you will find definitions of “consensus” unite around “a general agreement” and “a judgment arrived at by most concerned.” Nowhere do you find that it is agreement by everyone.

Why does this seeming misunderstanding of consensus bother me so much? Because a push to get full agreement on any issue can have very real and detrimental unintended consequences such as not fully vetting the idea because people fear challenge will be perceived as conflict so they stay quiet or the idea getting watered down to the lowest acceptable denominator when a bolder approach is what is needed.

It can also make people feel forced into a decision they later don’t embrace as fully as they would if they had felt heard and believed their insights were valued. A person can more easily support a decision with which they disagreed if they feel the process respected them, was fair, and the final rationale was transparently conveyed.

Perhaps the worst case is when a leader claims to seek consensus (maybe even genuinely so at first) yet ultimately makes the decision themselves or with a much smaller group, for whatever reason – time constraints, frustration, pressure from above, etc. To the leader, the reasons and the decision may be valid, but others may not see them that way, especially if the leader doesn’t close the loop and share the ways input received was appreciatively considered.

Done well, consensus seeking can improve decision quality, increase commitment to implementation, and build trust. Done without a clear understanding of what it means to the group, rather than achieving the inclusion consensus likely intends to create, it can result in disengagement and distrust.

Before suggesting that consensus on something is sought, leaders might be well served by asking themselves, “What level of participation does this decision need?” Not every decision requires consensus. What almost every important decision does require, though, is clarity about who will be heard, who will ultimately decide, and the connection between the two.