Today, some thoughts from Ari Weinzweig of the Zingermann Group of Companies:
“Like anarchism, consensus is very commonly and very completely misconstrued. So, what is consensus? Yugoslav historian Andrej Grubacic and anarchist anthropologist David Graeber offer a concise, conversational explanation that I’ve always found helpful:
-Consensus is often misunderstood. One often hears critics claim it would cause stifling conformity but almost never by anyone who has actually observed consensus in action, at least, as guided by trained, experienced facilitators. … In fact, the operating assumption is that no one could really convert another completely to their point of view, or probably should. Instead, the point of consensus process is to allow a group to decide on a common course of action. Instead of voting proposals up and down, proposals are worked and reworked, scotched or reinvented, there is a process of compromise and synthesis, until one ends up with something everyone can live with.-
If one opts for autocracy, in theory at least, one can make quick decisions. The problem is that it’s conducive to rather arbitrary and awful decisions that the boss believes are great ideas. Like invading Ukraine, or in a business, firing someone with whom we’re frustrated without honoring due process and taking time to dig deeper into a story to see what really happened.
By contrast, when we decide to use consensus, we are embracing the challenge that—other than in crisis situations that require quick action—we will nearly always move more slowly in the process of making the decision. We do it in the belief that by embracing our impatience and the inevitable awkwardness that comes with difficult conversations, we will end up with a more holistically sound decision, a lot more buy-in, and more often than not, a creative coming together that none of us could have come up with on our own.”
Traditional management is based on the idea that people are at worst, unwilling slaves, at best ignorant children, to be forced through strict rules and punishment to do what managers want. Even if it’s supposedly ‘for their own good’.
Consensus on the other hand “ultimately comes down to just two principles: everyone should have equal say (call this “equality”), and nobody should be compelled to do anything they really don’t want to do (call this, “freedom.”)”
I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to live in a world where decisions, even hard ones, are made by people grown up enough to realise that in a world where everyone has different needs, nobody gets everything they want, but everyone can have something they can happily live with.
In a business, not every decision needs to be made this way. Many things should ‘just happen’. So, if you take decision out of all the things that should just happen, you free up time and energy to make hard, important decisions in a much better way. With outcomes everyone can happily live with.
Discipline makes Daring possible.
