A few months ago, a CEO reached out to me, visibly frustrated. “We’ve been stuck in this loop for weeks,” he said. “Every time we get close to a decision, someone in the team raises a concern, and we go right back to debating. It feels like we’re going nowhere.” He explained that he had been trying to shift his leadership style toward more consensus-based decision-making after receiving feedback that his approach had been too top-down. However, in trying to involve everyone, he found himself struggling with endless discussions, difficulty getting full agreement, and a frustratingly slow decision-making process.

As leaders and managers, our goal is to be inclusive and ensure that everyone’s voices are heard. At the same time, building consensus can slow things down, create frustration, and pile up opportunity costs. Resistance from a few people can halt progress and leave teams exhausted and demotivated. In this week’s post, let’s explore whether adopting consent instead of consensus helps us regain momentum?

The two sides of consensus

Consensus culture is deeply rooted in many corporate workplaces – and it’s growing even more prevalent due to reasons like:

• a growing emphasis on fairness, buy-in and collaboration
• a transition from hierarchical to flatter organizational structures
• the rise of participative models of leadership

Consensus-based decision making has the best of intentions and, in fact, does offer several benefits. People feel heard and involved. Various opinions are aired and discussed. There is a feeling of mutual trust and “being in it together”. These advantages make consensus far more favourable than an autocratic, no-discussion style of leadership.

That said, seeking unanimous buy-in brings its own pitfalls:

• Decision gridlock. Reaching complete agreement takes time – and lots of it. Debates stretch over hours, days and weeks. Decision-making slows to a crawl, hampering the ability to act swiftly.
• Decision abandonment. Decisions get kicked down the road constantly, especially when working with diverse stakeholders with differing agendas. Looking for the “perfect solution” can lead to no solution at all.
• Diluted impact. Consensus often leads to overly “safe” solutions that don’t excite or inspire. The result? Mediocre outcomes that reflect watered-down compromises instead of bold, innovative action.
• Growing frustration. Team members get irritated and demoralized as each decision is revisited endlessly. The effort to appease everyone ends up satisfying no one.
• An obsession with consensus-building increases the risk of groupthink, forcing team members to “comply” via peer pressure so things can move forward.

Marty Cagan, founder of the Silicon Valley Product Group, sums it up well:
Of course if I had the choice between everybody on the team excited and supportive of something versus not having everyone excited and supportive, I would certainly rather have everyone on board.
However…in consensus cultures people are rarely excited or supportive. Mostly because they are very frustrated at how slow things move, how risk-averse the company is, how hard it is to make a decision…

Consent offers a way forward

Do we have only two choices: authoritarian or consensus culture? Fortunately, there is a third option available to us.

Instead of trying to find the perfect solution, consent focuses on minimizing harm and fuelling progress. The idea is to address key objections and secure permission to act. To put it simply, consent asks, “Can we all live with this decision for now?” while consensus asks, “Do we all agree 100%?”.

A consent-based process offers clear benefits:

• Speed and efficiency. It’s quicker to get consent than consensus. By resolving critical objections rather than seeking complete buy-in, teams can avoid lengthy debates and move forward nimbly.
• Collaboration with momentum. Team members still feel heard and valued, with their objections being thoughtfully addressed. This creates a shared sense of ownership while maintaining momentum.
• Adaptability, not perfection. Consent focuses on solutions that are “good enough” to proceed for now, with the option to iterate or adjust later.

Consent-based decision making is rooted in Sociocracy, a form of self-governance aimed at building psychologically safe and productive organizations. It can be especially helpful for:

• fast-paced environments where you need to act decisively
• situations requiring quick experimentation
• sticky issues with lots of stakeholders and strong opinions
• startups that are scaling up and can no longer use consensus efficiently
• two-way door decisions that can be reversed easily without much impact
• teams that want to accelerate decision making and economize resources

Moving from consensus to consent

Transitioning to consent might feel challenging at first, especially for groups accustomed to pursuing full agreement. Here are 7 suggestions to start integrating consent into your decision-making process:

1. Align on the problem and decision-maker.

Before jumping into solution mode, ensure that everyone is aligned on the problem, the value of solving it, and the primary decision-maker. This shared understanding reduces confusion and debate later on. As Carl Rogers notes in his article in Medium:
If nobody else shares your perspective of the problem, or that it is of any importance to be resolved, then any effort on a potential solution is for now a wasted effort. Additional perspectives will likely grow understanding of the actual problem to be solved.

2. Propose the solution with key information.

When making your proposal, anticipate and answer common questions to speed up the process. Explain your thinking by including:

• relevant context or data
• the options you considered
• what could go wrong
• how to measure success
• what you need to succeed

3. Invite clarifying questions.

Give people a chance to be curious and ask clarifying questions. Make sure everyone understands what’s being proposed before judging or critiquing it. For example:

• Could you tell us more about…?
• Why do you suggest…?
• What do you mean by …?

4. Check for objections.

Instead of asking people if they agree, say, “Does anyone have any objections to moving forward?” If someone raises an issue, request details. In the consent-based process, a mere rejection isn’t enough; it must be backed up with reasoning or evidence.

5. Resolve objections.

Objections include significant risks and serious consequences. Address these collaboratively, one at a time. Avoid circling back, revisiting, holding off, etc. as this will only stretch the process. As Rogers advises:
As a good rule of practice, don’t leave a conversation without either resolving objections that were raised, or without a clear plan to do so in short order.

If someone gets stuck on a preference or concern (rather than an actual objection), refocus the discussion: “I respect that you don’t like/agree with the design/direction/timeline. But do you think trying this will cause harm?”

6. Achieve consent.

Establish consent by asking, “Is this good enough for now? Can we proceed?” Remember, the goal is for the decision to be within the shared range of tolerance, not to 100% satisfy everyone. Some people may agree wholeheartedly, while others may still have concerns but no serious objections. And that’s just fine.

7. Disagree and commit.

Getting comfortable with the idea of “disagree and commit” can be game-changing. Even if some team members have reservations, they can still commit to the plan of action if their other colleagues are passionate about it and utterly convinced of success.

Empower, Align, Act

It’s understandable why so many leaders fall into the consensus trap. It feels safe. It feels inclusive. But when every decision needs universal agreement, forward motion grinds to a halt. We don’t need to sacrifice momentum to maintain collaboration.

Consent-based decision-making offers a way to honour team input while keeping things moving. It allows for participation without endless debate, encourages ownership without stagnation, and creates space for course correction along the way.

So, the next time you get stuck in an endless loop of trying to please everyone, ask yourself – are you truly making progress or just spinning in circles? What would happen if you aimed for consent instead?