What`s The Difference Between Consensus And Agreement

In the basic consensus, participants are explicitly asked if there is anyone who disagrees. A common phrase in the meetings I observed was: “Is there anyone who can`t live with this decision?” or simply “someone against?”, thus offering an explicit place for dissidents, so to speak now or shut up forever. In this practice, consensus appears as a piece of silence, and by observing this silence as the absence of disagreement, the participants determine the existence of a consensus. Silence in this practice makes it possible to express disagreements, allowing dissidents (in relation to the forced and acclaimed consensus) to easily oppose it. agreement in the judgment or the opinion of a group as a whole; Last week, I heard about the term consent versus consensus from a visit to coach Agile and it made me curious. I never knew that there was indeed a difference between consent and consensus. I looked on the internet, and I found that the key is the way it`s done in practice. I propose that we be able to distinguish at least four types of consensus in meetings: forced consensus, recognized consensus, fundamental consensus and deliberative consensus (Haug 2015). In short, the difference between these is what is the possibility of expressing divergent opinions: the consensus aims to improve solidarity in the long term.

It should therefore not be confused with unanimity in the immediate situation, which is often a symptom of group thinking. Studies of an effective consensual process generally suggest a rejection of unanimity or an “illusion of unanimity”[37] that will not be maintained, as a group is under real pressure (when dissent reappears). Cory Doctorow, Ralph Nader and other proponents of deliberative democracy or judicial methods see explicit differences as a symbol of strength. But in practice, this is not the choice I find. In consensual cultures, people are rarely excited or supportive. Especially because they are very frustrated with the slowness of things, the risk aversion of the company, the difficulty in making a decision and, above all, the way the products are not impressed. Some proponents of consensual decisions believe that procedures involving the use of majority decisions are not welcome for several reasons. Majority decisions are considered competitive and non-cooperative, which eroded decision-making into a win-lose dichotomy, ignoring the possibility of compromise or other mutually beneficial solutions. [43] Carlos Santiago Nino, for his part, argued that the majority rule led to a better practice of advice than alternatives, since each member of the group must present arguments that challenge at least half of the participants.

[44] A. Lijphart came to the same conclusion on the majority rule and noted that the majority rule favoured coalition building. [45] Moreover, opponents of the majority argue that it can lead to a “tyranny of the majority”, a scenario in which a majority places its interests above those of an isolated or minority group to form active oppression. However, some voting theorists argue that the majority majority could effectively prevent the tyranny of the majority, in part because it maximizes the potential of a minority to form a coalition that could overturn an unsatisfactory decision. [45] Many companies pride themselves on being a “culture of consensus.” And of course, if I had the choice among all the team members, excited and supportive for something, instead of not having all been excited and supporting, to keep everything else constant, I would prefer to have everyone on board.