The Tyranny Of Leadership Consensus & The Risk Of Incompetency

Everyone deserves to express their opinion, right? Well, actually, no. C-Suites that insist upon listening to everyone about everything all the time will get nothing done. CEOs who manage by consensus usually fail. Why? How many companies have time to debate every aspect of every problem before pulling the trigger? How patient should everyone be as they wait to hear from everyone on a long decision-making list?

Leading by Consensus

Leading by consensus is a popular management approach:

“Consensus decision-making is a process in which a group or team arrives at a decision that all can support. All members, including the leader, have an equal share or stake in the decision and have the ability to support or block the decision. This method of decision-making leads to better solutions, greater team buy-in, and builds more productive and cohesive teams.”

But does it really? Not really, so why is it so appealing?

“Some leaders are following the allure of a fantasy that ‘nobody will be mad at me.’ A leader’s wish to avoid conflict, or to avoid being perceived as controlling, mean, or power-hungry, makes consensus building seem like a good approach. Sadly, every leader learns they must learn to tolerate making people unhappy and not being liked.”

Losing by Consensus

It’s amazing how may management theorists promote consensus decision-making when the risks are so great. As described by Prudy Gourguechon in Forbes, there are any number of reasons why consensus decision-making fails:

“The consensus building process can be experienced as a tease by team members, who feel tantalized by the idea that they are equal partners in the decision but retain an awareness that they aren’t.

“It slows everything down, sometimes to the point of a standstill.

“It easily encourages lasting splits in the ranks where two opposing groups concentrate on winning their position rather than solving the problem, ad infinitum.

“It ignores the fact that the real challenge is often living with difference, rather than coming to consensus.

“It makes people anxious. Imagine a military unit in combat if consensus were needed before taking an action.”

Related to anxiety is frustration where decision-makers wonder why so many colleagues have so much to say about problems about which they know so little. There’s also the risk of title infringement where leaders justify participation based on wide interpretations of their job descriptions. Finally, without clear decision-making governance, consensus decision-making creates a kind of management chaos.

What to Do

Build a RACI chart – if only in your head. But by all means erase any ambiguity about who’s in charge of what decisions. Ambiguity will automatically revert to consensus – which is no way to get things done. Scream often and loudly about who’s in charge of what decisions. Define an open season for input, which should be short and well-defined. For example, a draft strategic plan could be released where there’s a one-week call for comments. Transparency then calls for a “defense” where the reasons why some comments were accepted and some rejected are described. Never live in secrecy because secrecy undermines credibility every time, all the time. Transparency is everyone’s friend and neutralizes complaints about power-hungry executives – though transparency won’t always make everyone happy.

Unambiguous accountability and the power that enables it can also breed resentment, jealousy and irrational competition – especially if those with decision-making power are incompetent. Competency is the perfect anecdote to consensus decision-making, just as incompetency threatens accountability, though if a company empowers lots of incompetent decision-makers, no decision-making style will work.

If the corporate culture is – and has always been – consensus-driven, the challenge is systemic. If a CEO demands consensus decision-making then decision-making will likely remain consensus-driven. What to do when one or both of these situations exist? Avoid challenges to the culture or the CEO unless both are failing in which case changes of all kinds will be welcomed.

There’s a clear two-step required here. The first is the empowerment of competent leaders and the second is the death of consensus decision-making. Conversely, if leadership is incompetent, authority decision-making could create far more problems than it solves.

Conclusion

Decision-making should be purposeful, focused and timely. Consensus decision-making enables none of these things. The concentration of power is smart – so long as the concentrates are competent. Since the percentage of leaders who are clearly competent is not nearly as high as it should be (and those in charge have little self-awareness of their inadequate skills and incompetencies), consensus decision-making is its own landmine. Is this why there’s still so much of it? Does consensus decision-making provide air-cover for executvies unsure of their abilities? Does consensus decision-making provide protection from huge mistakes? Yes, it does. As suggested, it may well be that authority (or small group) decision-making only works when leaders are competent.

Ultimately, decision-making effectiveness requires competency. But consensus decision-making restricts competency, as it protects incompetency. Said a little differently, when leaders are competent, consensus decision-making is ineffective. But when they’re incompetent, it may save companies from decision disasters. So why do so many management “theories” fail to identify competency as the ultimate driver of success?