Editing Consensus decision-making (section)

===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.