“We’re going to have to do surgery on his shoulder. We’ll cut through the shoulder joint and open it up entirely and clean out the infection.”

I was sitting in a hospital room with my wife and one-year-old son. He had developed sepsis in his shoulder capsule – one of those freak things that just happened. The surgeon was advising us that to save him, they were going to have to cut his arm nearly entirely off. At least that’s what I heard.

There was no way I was going to let that happen.

“There has to be some other way! Can’t you go in with some kind of arthroscopy and clean it out?”

The surgeon stopped and considered what I was saying. Thinking out loud, he started to explore how he might be able to make that work. Then he interrupted himself,

“No. If we are going to do this, we are going to do it the right way. I need to completely open it up and ensure I’ve removed all the infection. Otherwise, we’re likely to create a worse problem.”

I felt sick to my stomach.

They operated on my son. Nearly cut his arm off. Pus exploded out like a volcano. The surgeon was impressed.

He’s 12 now. Healthy, athletic, and has a cool scar.

The surgeon did exactly the right thing. He didn’t allow my fear and medical ignorance to inform his decision-making.

“We’ll get back to you once we’ve got everyone on board.”

Too often, this sounds like a poor decision about to be slowly made.

Many decisions have no clear, obvious correct answer. For some decisions, the best answer is difficult and possibly even painful. This is perhaps the most difficult aspect of leadership – the need to forge a path when it is unclear or challenging.

Sometimes, often in fact, the absolute wrong answer is to “get everyone on board” first. It sounds healthy, caring, and respectful to pursue consensus. (And there are times when it is appropriate – I’ll touch on this later.) But most often, consensus decision-making is often driven by fear of failure or conflict. Put differently, fear of a wrong decision or making someone unhappy.

Decision Killers

Unfortunately, consensus tends to kill the quality of decisions, their timeliness, or whether they are made. Here’s what often actually happens with consensus decision-making:

• Real issues or concerns are avoided or stifled.
• Debate and even questions are discouraged or viewed as conflict.
• Acquiescence is mistaken for agreement. People just give up and give in.
• Groupthink guides decision-making.
• Lowest-common-denominator thinking dominates the discussion.
• The process is time-consuming.
• No decision is made – analysis paralysis.

When consensus is usually not needed or helpful

• Routine, reversible, non-critical decisions: Many decisions are ‘administrative.’ Or they can be easily reversed. There is little reason to engage many people’s time with them.
• Time-sensitive decisions: Often during emergencies or pursuing opportunities. Having a predetermined framework of values and priorities can ensure that effective decisions are being made.
• Bad faith actors: In some situations, some individuals or groups won’t follow through or will work against the interests of others – regardless of what they say.
• Large groups: It’s nearly impossible to gain consensus with a large group of people.
• When confrontation is needed: Some people or problems need to be confronted. Some people are uncomfortable with confrontation and will never agree to it. Some people are the problem themselves.
• When critical reasoning is needed: Some topics are complicated and sensitive. They required a unique level of expertise and/or wisdom (or just plain common sense) to develop a solution.
• Some high-risk decisions: Related to critical reasoning and confrontation – some people are risk-averse and will decide (or not act) due to avoidance of risk as opposed to responding to the issue at hand. Like my conversation with the surgeon. I didn’t want to risk my son. But I wasn’t the best person to evaluate the risk of surgery.

There is a place for consensus – I’m not being ridiculous about this

The above being said, consensus has a place, where it is valuable or may even be critical:

• High-stakes decisions where all parties have a personal stake in the outcomes: An example is when business partners require consensus before taking on a new partner or making a major change to a company.
• When the underlying objective isn’t the decision but the relationship: Sometimes, the decision-making process and how it benefits the relationship is more important than the decision itself.
• Long-term projects where stakeholder support is required: If you require the ongoing support of people, it may be worth putting the time upfront to gain it.
• Conflict resolution: A sustainable resolution is one where people stop fighting over something. The best way to achieve this is to develop a solution everyone accepts.

But even in those situations, consensus decision-making only works if you avoid the decision-killers I described above.

Here’s another resource I wrote called How to Make Good Decisions Faster. The principles described here all support independent decision-making. But they also apply to consensus decisions as well.

Remember this: The worst decision is often the one that was never made.

I hope this helps. Go forth and decide.

Take good care,

Christian

#ChristianMuntean, #LeadershipAdvisory, #ExitStrategyService, #ChristianMunteanAdvising, #LeadershipCoaching, #ExitSuccessService, #ChristianMunteanConsulting, #ExecutiveLeadership, #ExitandTeamAdvisory, #ChristianMunteanCoaching