Consensus, dissent and decisions

Not only is the word "consensus" overused, it turns out that dissent is a better way to come to a decision.

Not too long ago, a Harvard Business Review blogger noted that, "When group members are actively encouraged to openly express divergent opinions they not only share more information, they consider it more systematically and in a more balanced and less biased way. When people engage with those with different opinions and views from their own they become much more capable of properly interrogating critical assumptions and identifying creative alternatives. Studies comparing the problem-solving abilities of groups in which dissenting views are voiced with groups in which they are not find that dissent tends to be a better precondition for reaching the right solution than consensus."

This shouldn't come as a surprise. The post mentions a few well known individuals and organizations that suffered as a result of consensus. Nor does it take long to come up with a few examples of our own. Consensus is sometimes the result of groupthink, and that led to the Challenger accident.

Closer to home, we attempted to resolve the wind turbine issue using consensus. The Wind Turbines Option Process (WTOP) did achieve consensus amongst its members, but that group had no authority. Although the selectmen - in a show of solidarity - adopted the recommendation to shut down the turbines, the taxpayers weren't part of the consensus. We all know how that turned out.

We often lament the gridlock in Washington, D.C., but in truth, it is far better for us than consensus. Consensus brought us the Patriot Act and the NSA's domestic spying. And, of course, the Chinese government loves consensus.