1876 cover of Robert's Rules of Order , a book...

Image via Wikipedia

Factories paying below-living-wage conditions and with poor working conditions don’t spontaneously appear; someone decides to establish them and disregard what kind of lives their workers will have to lead.

As a defender of worker engagement and of tripartite labour relations, I find consensus decision-making naturally appealing. Certainly whenever the workers or even a third party gets a say, the result is just about always better than if they don’t.

So, why doesn’t everyone do this? Are there costs of trying to please everybody? What are they?

The collaborators who have produced the Wikipedia page on Consensus decision-making have done a great job at explaining its purpose, benefits, drawbacks and alternatives (as one would hope, since Wikipedia is itself consensus-based!)

Consensus differs most strongly from hierarchy, or top-down decision-making. It also differs from parliamentary procedure (or in the USA, Robert’s Rules of Order) which are designed to obtain majority support for proposals. Consensus decision-making strives to avoid having ‘losing’ stakeholders. You might say it places the continued functioning of the forum or organisation above any single decision-making outcome.

Practically speaking consensus rules may not require absolute unanimity but simple supermajority to avoid situations like the UN Security Council where five historically powerful nations retain unfettered use of a veto.

The main problems of the consensus approach identified by the Wiki editors are:

  • Preservation of the status quo through inaction gives one side of debate a built-in advantage.
  • “Squeaky wheels”: The most difficult stakeholders are carefully attended to while the most agreeable are ignored. This rewards people for disagreeing and might incline them to do so out of simple self-interest, bogging down the process.
  • Abilene paradox: To reach a solution everyone agrees with, the group may end up adopting a position no individual member desired.

So consensus is not a panacea but you be the judge, it might still be a better approach than unfettered managerial prerogative. Ask the people who work in and run co-operatives what they think.

  1. […] Pros and cons of Consensus (fairforall.org) […]

  2. […] Pros and cons of consensus 24 June 2011 […]

  3. […] Pros and cons of consensus 24 June 2011 Share this:EmailPrintFacebookTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]

  4. […] valued company-provided amenities, (2) made a moral involvement with their company and (3) prefer decisions made by groups. Unsurprisingly countries with a strong Chinese/Confucian influence were low […]

  5. […] the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) was set up in 1999 specifically by people unhappy about the compromise-solution of the Fair Labor Association (FLA) which, among other things, does not insist on a […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s