Interlude - Index of

110 | Turbulent Adolescence
bring them to a consensus on the right plan. If they fail, then
the decision comes back to my staff meeting, preferably in
the form of different recommendations to choose from. I am
sometimes a key stakeholder, so don’t forget about me when
driving to consensus.”
The trickiest issue was defining consensus. Even when people
have a rough agreement, they may differ on details. Does
consensus mean 100 percent agreement? If not, who determines
whether consensus has been reached? What does it
mean to own a decision if you still have to reach consensus?
I asked Dan all these questions, and he said: “If the owner
and key stakeholders cannot reach agreement, then I will
decide, or maybe send them back to try again. But everyone
should be aware that I have a strong bias to accept the owner’s
recommendation. Consensus doesn’t mean that you agree
100 percent with the owner. Withholding consent means that
you believe the owner’s plan is fundamentally broken, and you
want to try to convince me of that, despite my bias to accept
the owner’s recommendation. I am not interested in arguments
about the owner’s plan is good, but mine is better. I
won’t judge beauty contests. Go convince the owner. But if a
plan is really busted, please do tell me about that!”
I love this definition of consensus because it is pragmatic,
not philosophical theory. If you are a stakeholder trying to
decide whether to withhold consent, consider whether the
owner’s case is really so weak that you can overcome Dan’s
“strong bias” to go with the owner. But if you are an owner,
and key stakeholders are objecting, consider whether their
case is so weak that Dan will ignore it. Maybe you should work
harder to accommodate the stakeholders’ concern and reach
consensus. I bet your plan will be stronger for it.