Editing Consensus decision-making (section)

==Criticism==
===Criticism of blocking===
Critics of consensus blocking often observe that the option, while potentially effective for small groups of motivated or trained individuals with a sufficiently high degree of [[Affinity (sociology)|affinity]], has a number of possible shortcomings, notably
*''Preservation of the status quo'': In decision-making bodies that use formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would like it to change.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.geocities.com/collectivebook/introductiontoconsensus.html |title=Introduction to Consensus |access-date=17 January 2007 |author=The Common Wheel Collective |year=2002 |work=The Collective Book on Collective Process |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060630154451/http://geocities.com/collectivebook/introductiontoconsensus.html |archive-date=30 June 2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
*''Susceptibility to widespread disagreement'': Giving the right to block proposals to all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible minority or individual. When a popular proposal is blocked the group actually experiences widespread disagreement, the opposite of the consensus process's goal. Furthermore, "opposing such obstructive behavior [can be] construed as an attack on freedom of speech and in turn [harden] resolve on the part of the individual to defend his or her position."<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.connected.org/govern/consensus.html | title = Consensus building and verbal desperados | access-date = 17 January 2007 | author = Alan McCluskey | year = 1999 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070209032625/http://www.connected.org/govern/consensus.html | archive-date = 9 February 2007 | url-status = dead }}</ref> As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the least accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating.
*''Stagnation and group dysfunction'': When groups cannot make the decisions necessary to function (because they cannot resolve blocks), they may lose effectiveness in accomplishing their mission.
*''Susceptibility to splitting and excluding members'': When high levels of group member frustration result from blocked decisions or inordinately long meetings, members may leave the group, try to get to others to leave, or limit who has entry to the group.
*''Channeling decisions away from an inclusive group process'': When group members view the status quo as unjustly difficult to change through a whole group process, they may begin to delegate decision-making to smaller committees or to an executive committee. In some cases members begin to act unilaterally because they are frustrated with a stagnated group process.

===Groupthink===
Consensus seeks to improve [[solidarity]] in the long run.  Accordingly, it should not be confused with [[unanimity]] in the immediate situation, which is often a symptom of [[groupthink]].  Studies of effective consensus process usually indicate a shunning of unanimity or "illusion of unanimity"<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Welch Cline | first1 = Rebecca J | year = 1990 | title = Detecting groupthink: Methods for observing the illusion of unanimity | journal = Communication Quarterly | volume = 38 | issue = 2| pages = 112–126| doi=10.1080/01463379009369748}}</ref> that does not hold up as a group comes under real-world pressure (when dissent reappears). [[Cory Doctorow]], [[Ralph Nader]] and other proponents of [[deliberative democracy]] or judicial-like methods view explicit dissent as a symbol of strength.

In his book about Wikipedia, [[Joseph Reagle]] considers the merits and challenges of consensus in open and online communities.<ref name="Reagle2010">{{cite book|first=Joseph M. Jr. |last=Reagle|chapter=The challenges of consensus|chapter-url=http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/chapter-5.html|title=Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia|date=30 September 2010|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-01447-2|page=100|title-link=Good Faith Collaboration|author1-link=Joseph M. Reagle Jr.}} Available for free download in multiple formats at: {{Internet Archive|id=GoodFaithColaboration|name=Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia}}.</ref> Randy Schutt,<ref name="Schutt2016">{{Cite web|last=Schutt|first=Randy|date=13 June 2016|title=Consensus Is Not Unanimity: Making Decisions Cooperatively|url=http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/process/ConsensusNotUnanimity.html|access-date=26 August 2020|website=www.vernalproject.org}}</ref> Starhawk<ref name="Starhawk2008">{{Cite web|last=Starhawk|title=Consensus Decision Making Articles for learning how to use consensus process - Adapted from Randy Schutt|url=https://www.consensusdecisionmaking.org/articles-consensus/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080213035359/http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus-nu.html|archive-date=13 February 2008|access-date=26 August 2020|website=Consensus Decision-Making|language=en-US}}</ref> and other practitioners of [[direct action]] focus on the hazards of apparent agreement followed by action in which group splits become dangerously obvious.

Unanimous, or apparently unanimous, decisions can have drawbacks.<ref>{{Cite book|title=International Institutional Law|page=547
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OMXToQLp21UC|isbn=978-9004187986
|first1=Henry G. |last1=Schermers|first2=Niels M. |last2=Blokker|year=2011|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
|access-date=29 February 2016}}</ref>  They may be symptoms of a [[systemic bias]], a rigged process (where an [[agenda (meeting)|agenda]] is not published in advance or changed when it becomes clear who is present to consent), fear of speaking one's mind, a lack of creativity (to suggest alternatives) or even a lack of courage (to go further along the same road to a more extreme solution that would not achieve unanimous consent).

Unanimity is achieved when the full group apparently consents to a decision.  It has disadvantages insofar as further disagreement, improvements or better ideas then remain hidden, but effectively ends the debate moving it to an implementation phase.  Some consider all unanimity a form of groupthink, and some experts propose "coding systems&nbsp;... for detecting the illusion of unanimity symptom".<ref>{{cite journal |title=Detecting groupthink: Methods for observing the illusion of unanimity |journal=Communication Quarterly |volume=38 |number=2 |first=Rebecca J. Welch |last=Cline |year=2009 |doi=10.1080/01463379009369748 |pages=112–126}}</ref>  In ''Consensus is not Unanimity'', long-time progressive change activist Randy Schutt writes:

{{Quote|Many people think of consensus as simply an extended voting method in which everyone must cast their votes the same way. Since unanimity of this kind rarely occurs in groups with more than one member, groups that try to use this kind of process usually end up being either extremely frustrated or coercive. Decisions are never made (leading to the demise of the group), they are made covertly, or some group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority dominates, sometimes a minority, sometimes an individual who employs "the Block." But no matter how it is done, this coercive process is '''not''' consensus.<ref name="Schutt2016" />}}

Confusion between unanimity and consensus, in other words, usually causes consensus decision-making to fail, and the group then either reverts to majority or supermajority rule or disbands.

Most robust models of consensus exclude uniformly unanimous decisions and require at least documentation of minority concerns.  Some state clearly that unanimity is not consensus but rather evidence of intimidation, lack of imagination, lack of courage, failure to include all voices, or deliberate exclusion of the contrary views.

===Criticism of majority voting processes===
Some proponents of consensus decision-making view procedures that use [[majority rule]] as undesirable for several reasons. Majority [[voting]] is regarded as [[Competition|competitive]], rather than [[cooperation|cooperative]], framing decision-making in a win/lose dichotomy that ignores the possibility of [[compromise]] or other mutually beneficial solutions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/all-news-english/display-single-english-news/browse/4/article/1634/consensus-a-colourful-fa-1.html |title=Consensus: a colourful farewell to majority rule |access-date=17 January 2007 |author=Friedrich Degenhardt |year=2006 |publisher=World Council of Churches |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061206132304/http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/all-news-english/display-single-english-news/browse/4/article/1634/consensus-a-colourful-fa-1.html |archive-date=6 December 2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Carlos Santiago Nino, on the other hand, has argued that majority rule leads to better deliberation practice than the alternatives, because it requires each member of the group to make arguments that appeal to at least half the participants.<ref>{{Cite book|last=McGann|first=Anthony|url=http://www.press.umich.edu/189565|title=The Logic of Democracy: Reconciling Equality, Deliberation, and Minority Protection|date=2006|publisher=University of Michigan Press|isbn=978-0-472-09949-8|location=Ann Arbor, MI|language=en|doi=10.3998/mpub.189565}}</ref>

Some advocates of consensus would assert that a majority decision reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision. Members of a minority position may feel less commitment to a majority decision, and even majority voters who may have taken their positions along party or bloc lines may have a sense of reduced responsibility for the ultimate decision. The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus proponents, is potentially less willingness to defend or act upon the decision.

Majority voting cannot measure consensus. Indeed,&mdash;so many 'for' and so many 'against'&mdash;it measures the very opposite, the degree of dissent. The [[Modified Borda Count]] has been put forward as a voting method which better approximates consensus.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rhizome |date=2011-06-02 |title=Near-consensus alternatives: Crowd Wise |url=https://rhizomenetwork.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/near-consensus-alternatives-crowd-wise/ |access-date=2022-05-30 |website=Welcome to the archived Rhizome website for useful resources |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":3" />

===Additional critical perspectives===
Some formal models based on [[graph theory]] attempt to explore the implications of suppressed [[dissent]] and subsequent sabotage of the group as it takes action.<ref>{{cite book |pages=2841–2846 |doi=10.1109/ICSMC.2010.5641917 |chapter=Consensus building and the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution |year=2010 |last1=Inohara |first1=Takehiro |title=2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics |s2cid=36860543 |isbn=978-1-4244-6586-6 }}</ref>

High-stakes decision-making, such as judicial decisions of appeals courts, always require some such explicit documentation. Consent however is still observed that defies factional explanations. Nearly 40% of the decisions of the [[United States Supreme Court]], for example, are unanimous, though often for widely varying reasons. "Consensus in Supreme Court voting, particularly the extreme consensus of unanimity, has often puzzled Court observers who adhere to ideological accounts of judicial decision making."<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Norm of Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court|journal=American Journal of Political Science|volume=45|issue=2|pages=362–377|jstor = 2669346|last1 = Epstein|first1 = Lee|last2=Segal|first2=Jeffrey A.|last3=Spaeth|first3=Harold J.|year=2001|doi=10.2307/2669346}}</ref> Historical evidence is mixed on whether particular Justices' views were suppressed in favour of public unity.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Consensus, Disorder, and Ideology on the Supreme Court | doi=10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01249.x | volume=9|issue=1|journal=Journal of Empirical Legal Studies|pages=129–148|year = 2012|last1 = Edelman|first1 = Paul H.| last2=Klein | first2=David E. | last3=Lindquist | first3=Stefanie A. | s2cid=142712249 }}</ref>

Heitzig and Simmons (2012) suggest using random selection as a fall-back method to strategically incentivize consensus over blocking.<ref name="SCFC" /> However, this makes it very difficult to tell the difference between those who support the decision and those who merely tactically tolerate it for the incentive. Once they receive that incentive, they may undermine or refuse to implement the agreement in various and non-obvious ways. In general [[voting system]]s avoid allowing offering incentives (or "bribes") to change a heartfelt vote.

In the [[Abilene paradox]], a group can unanimously agree on a course of action that no individual member of the group desires because no one individual is willing to go against the perceived will of the decision-making body.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Jerry B.|last= Harvey|journal=Organizational Dynamics|date=Summer 1974|volume= 3|issue=1|title=The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management|doi=10.1016/0090-2616(74)90005-9|pages=63–80}}</ref>

Since consensus decision-making focuses on discussion and seeks the input of all participants, it can be a time-consuming process. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions must be made speedily, or where it is not possible to canvass opinions of all delegates in a reasonable time. Additionally, the time commitment required to engage in the consensus decision-making process can sometimes act as a barrier to participation for individuals unable or unwilling to make the commitment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldr-dm/pt3ch11.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030427202741/http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldr-dm/pt3ch11.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=27 April 2003 |title=Consensus Team Decision Making |access-date=17 January 2007 |work=Strategic Leadership and Decision Making |publisher=National Defense University }}</ref> However, once a decision has been reached it can be acted on more quickly than a decision handed down. American businessmen complained that in negotiations with a Japanese company, they had to discuss the idea with everyone even the janitor, yet once a decision was made the Americans found the Japanese were able to act much quicker because everyone was on board, while the Americans had to struggle with internal opposition.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Tomalin |first1=Barry |last2=Knicks |first2=Mike |title=The World's Business Cultures and How to Unlock Them |chapter=Consensus or individually driven decision- |publisher=Thorogood Publishing |year=2008 |page=109 |isbn=978-1-85418-369-9}}</ref>