January 1996
Bogus Consensus
A Guide for the Unwary
Return to Consensus article
Like "green" and "natural," consensus is becoming a buzz word, which means it is being co-opted by those want to appear hip and inclusive, but who have no real intention of giving up decision-making power. In other cases, consensus abuse is committed by well-meaning people who lack the training to use the process effectively. Look for these warning signs and take the steps recommended to avoid wasted time and heartbreak.
Special note to policy makers, corporate top brass, artistic geniuses and lone wolves: If you know exactly what you want to do, have the means to implement your plan without public involvement or support and/or are not interested in including the ideas of others, then go ahead. Just don’t call it consensus.
Consensus building. This perversion of the consensus process occurs when policy makers and their hired hands hold meetings designed to sell people on a plan that has already been decided. Ask if the organizers are willing to put away their charts and graphs and listen.
Participation without implementation. Beware of public hearings, staff retreats, volunteer meetings, etc., where much effort is made to get "input" without any commitment to implementation. Ask what is going to be done with the ideas and information generated.
Inconvenient meeting times and locations. Public meetings held during the normal work day, meetings held in Washington, DC to discuss policies affecting residents of Idaho, and meetings called at the last minute automatically shut people out of the process. Ask whether those most affected by the decisions to be made realistically can attend the meetings.
Winning at any cost. When one or more of the participants views consensus as a game to be won, rather than a process to be entered into, meetings will be the same old decision-making hard ball. Ask whether any proposals other than those of the "leaders" will receive fair consideration.
Passive-aggressive leadership. When "leaders" (e.g., presidents, executive directors, chairpersons, etc.) fail to provide information, clear direction or good process, whether out of fear of appearing too controlling or sheer incompetence, they sabotage consensus. Ask those "in the know" to share their wisdom and experience — and then get out of the way so that others might participate.
Everyone decides everything. This unworkable and unnecessary strategy is a set up for failure. Ask that decision-making power be delegated to smaller working groups comprising those who will be most affected by the decisions. Ask that organization-wide and strategic decisions be open to review and challenge by all members.
Anything goes. Groups that try to function without any structure, focus or clear process guidelines are doomed to fail. The opposite of hierarchical control is not undisciplined chaos. Ask that the group adopt some guidelines.
— Beatrice Briggs and Shari Leyshon
![[Send]](http://consciouschoice.com/sendlink/send.gif){kind=small}
Recommend this page to a friend
Top Ten pages recommended to friends:
