Beyond Consensus: Decision-Making Models That Keep Teams Moving

As public failures go, the launch in 2013 of Healthcare.gov, the U.S. federal marketplace for the Affordable Care Act, was as spectacular as they come. Multiple government agencies and more than 55 contractors had a hand in its development — the finest minds top to bottom — yet the site crashed within hours of launch. In its first month, the web portal could handle only a fraction of expected traffic, enrolling fewer than 27,000 people despite millions of attempts.

A postmortem revealed a litany of problems stemming from the need to find consensus among parties with different objectives. Technical decisions were delayed for months as various parties debated architecture, security protocols and integration approaches. When problems arose during development, no single person or team could make executive decisions to override objections or delay the launch 

Admittedly, this is a super-sized example of consensus decision making run aground. Yet the potentially dysfunctional process can be seen today in any boardroom, community meeting or cross-functional team session. Even routine business choices — selecting a new software platform, redesigning office space or choosing a vendor — can become mired in endless discussion as teams strive for that elusive goal: everyone’s sign-off. 

The instinct to search for consensus is understandable. For many situations, consensus decision making is a democratic and inclusive approach. It can build cohesive, close-knit communities and give group members the feeling they have stake in the decision. It’s even been shown that group members’ neural activity becomes more aligned after consensus-building conversation. 

When seeking consensus backfires

But managers may not fully appreciate how difficult it is to find common ground within increasingly diverse and polarized groups. It is not just gender or cultural diversity. Teams whose members have differing values and goal orientations — learners who prefer to take time to understand tasks versus performers who focus on showing their competence — are difficult to align, according to research by Matthias Spitzmuller of Smith School of Business, and others.

Managers may also be blind to the costs of making decisions by consensus. First, it grants veto power to the most resistant voice in the room. A single holdout can paralyze an entire group, regardless of whether their concerns reflect genuine insight or simple inflexibility. This dynamic inadvertently punishes collaborative team members while rewarding stubbornness.

Second, consensus often produces watered-down decisions. To accommodate everyone's preferences, groups frequently arrive at the lowest common denominator. The result is mediocrity by design. 

Third, the consensus process is expensive. The time invested in countless meetings, side conversations and revised proposals carries real costs in delayed action and organizational paralysis. In fast-moving markets, the opportunity cost of waiting months for full consensus can dwarf the risks of making a good-enough decision quickly. 

Perhaps most problematically, mandatory consensus can breed resentment and dishonesty. Team members may publicly agree while privately dissenting, simply to end interminable discussions. This false consensus creates the illusion of alignment while masking fundamental disagreements that can resurface down the road.

Alternative group decision-making models

Fortunately, numerous decision-making frameworks have been developed that preserve participation and buy-in without requiring universal agreement. Consider the following alternatives: 

Sociocracy

Developed in the Netherlands, sociocracy distinguishes between consensus (everyone agrees) and consent (no one has a “paramount objection”). In the sociocracy model, a decision moves forward unless someone advances a reasoned argument that the proposal would harm the organization’s aims or create an unsafe situation. 

The key question shifts from “Can you support this?” to “Can you live with this?” This subtle change is potentially transformative. Team members no longer must decide if a decision is optimal, only that it is safe enough to try and good enough for now. 

Organizations that practise this approach are structured into semi-autonomous teams or departments, each with a clear domain of authority. These “circles” make decisions within their scope without needing approval from above, distributing power throughout the organization. 

Success conditions: Sociocracy works best in organizations with strong shared mission and relatively stable team composition. It requires psychological safety and trust. Team members must feel confident that paramount objections will be heard seriously, not dismissed as obstructionism. Sociocracy also demands discipline: participants must understand that personal preference does not constitute a paramount objection. 

Lazy Consensus 

Borrowed from open-source software communities, lazy consensus assumes agreement unless someone explicitly objects within a specified timeframe. A team member proposes a decision via email or shared document, announces a deadline (typically three to five days), and moves forward if no objections surface.

The approach assumes that those who care enough about an issue will speak up; silence indicates either agreement or acceptance. It shifts the burden from requiring active approval to requiring active objection.

Lazy Consensus dramatically accelerates routine decisions and empowers action-takers. It respects people’s time by not requiring active participation when they have nothing to add. It also creates a clear record of proposals and decision. 

Success conditions: Lazy consensus thrives in environments with good communication infrastructure, a culture of written documentation, and reasonable trust levels. It works best for low-stakes decisions that can be reversed if problems emerge. Critical success factors include clear communication channels that all team members regularly monitor, realistic timeframes for response, and established processes for handling objections when they arise. Organizations must also resist the temptation to use lazy consensus for decisions that genuinely require active discussion. Applying it too broadly breeds cynicism. 

Fist-to-Five

Popular in agile teams and collaborative meetings, this visual voting method asks participants to show their level of support for an option using fingers: a fist means “block” (fundamental objection), one finger means “serious concerns,” three means “acceptable”, and five means “enthusiastic support.” Decisions typically proceed if most responses are three or higher.

After the simultaneous show of hands, if there are any fists, ones or twos, those people are invited to share their concerns. The group then discusses the issues and may modify the proposal before voting again. Usually, the goal is to get everyone to at least a “three.”

Fist-to-five recognizes that agreement exists on a spectrum. It surfaces the intensity of feelings, not just their direction, giving leaders vital information about where to invest energy in addressing concerns. It is also fast — a roomful of people can express their positions in seconds.

Success conditions: This method requires face-to-face or video interaction where everyone can see everyone else’s signals. It works well for groups of five to 30 people who have established working relationships. Success depends on psychological safety — people must feel comfortable showing their true position, not just mimicking others. The technique works best when followed by brief dialogue, particularly with those showing one or two fingers, to understand and potentially address their concerns.

Advice Process

In the advice process, popularized by organizational theorist Frederic Laloux and based on his research with self-managing teams, the decision maker must seek advice from two groups: subject matter experts and people who would be significantly affected by the decision. The decision maker does not need permission or consensus, just to genuinely consider the input received.

This model preserves individual accountability while ensuring informed decisions. It is faster than consensus but more inclusive than top-down mandates. It also develops judgment; as people make decisions and live with consequences, their decision-making skills improve.

Success conditions: The advice process demands a culture shift away from hierarchy-based decision rights and requires high trust. Organizations must clearly define who “owns” which types of decisions and trust those people to decide, even when leaders would choose differently. It requires advisors who give honest input without expecting veto power and decision makers with the humility to genuinely listen and the courage to make a decision when advice conflicts. Documentation of who was consulted and what advice was considered helps maintain accountability.

The right process for the job

All these alternatives reject the premise that good group decisions require everyone’s agreement. Instead, they recognize that what groups actually need is legitimacy: stakeholders who feel heard, a fair process and a clear path forward. Sometimes, the best decision is not the one everyone loves, but the one that is good enough to move forward while preserving the relationships and agility the organization needs to thrive. When teams can move forward despite disagreement, they build momentum that paper-thin consensus rarely delivers.