Is unanimity in a decision-making body good or bad?
1 Boost
0 Likes
@evan I think unanimity often means someone is being excluded.
@evan @cassidy If you forced me to vote I'd probably say "more good than bad", because I'm a fan of consensus processes, but the reasons for unanimity matter.
Is it because the members took the time to address everyone's concerns? Is it because the building is surrounded by soldiers who will shoot anyone who dissents?
Without the context of why the decision is unanimous, it's impossible to say whether it's good or bad.
@evan yeah I usually make myself choose an answer, but in this case I don't think I know enough. Consensus is great in my context as a (sometimes practicing) Quaker, with a culture built around managing consensus. But I know I live in a weird bubble and most people have never encountered a consensus process in real life, and maybe have never heard of consensus decision-making. (Also consensus doesn't always mean unanimity.)
Please do not take this out of context. I am not attacking or even questioning you. I just found your comment thought provoking so ... consider this thinking out loud. If you would like to comment back then I would appreciate that. If not that is okay as well. Please, take no offense, I am just an old man trying to better understand what you have said, and why you have said it 
.
Nelson wrote:
Consensus is great in my context as a (sometimes practicing) Quaker, with a culture built around managing consensus.
Hmmm, that sounds rather dubious, though perhaps I am just misunderstanding what you are trying to say? To me managing consensus sounds a lot like making sure everyone believes what you want them to believe. To discourage skepticism. That really sounds bad. Perhaps I just do not get what you mean by that phrase?
Nelson wrote:
But I know I live in a weird bubble and most people have never encountered a consensus process in real life, and maybe have never heard of consensus decision-making.
Not such a weird bubble at all. Whether they use that label consensus process or not nearly everyone experiences it on a daily basis. What should we have for dinner? What restaurant should be go to? How should this article be worded so that the most people will understand and enjoy it (eg. author editor relationship). Our dictionary of the English language is quite literally a consensus to what the words could mean if we do not consider sarcasm, metaphor, idioms, colloquialisms, etc ... In fact consensus is built into most everyone's life in one way or the other, unless you happen to be a hermit . Consensus is not a bad thing nor a good thing. It is a tool that is sometimes useful and in other times quite harmful. Traditions are consensus on how we behave and even how we may dress etc. They can have some value and they can mute progress all together if those traditions are not managed correctly. It would be weird in fact to find someone that has not experienced a very consensus driven life.
Nelson wrote:
(Also consensus doesn't always mean unanimity.)
That is very true as consensus rarely means unanimity. It merely means the majority in most cases.
@skyfaller life is about making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. If that doesn't seem fun or interesting to you, though, feel free to sit this one out.
@evan I've seen it where board members were pressured to be unanimous and not seriously dissent or bring up things that might bring tension even if they were pertinent. That scenario is not a healthy one, and more common than most realize.
It would be wild if this poll were unanimous
Thanks everyone who replied. I think more bad than good. Here are my thoughts.
@evan "Twelve Angry Men" where the decision ended up being unanimous.
But it didn't start out that way.
@jmeowmeow this is a great example. Unanimity where the record shows real evidence of deliberation, and that the consensus is hard won, is probably a lot healthier than a unanimous vote without discussion or debate (as almost happens at the beginning of that story!).
It's a sign that participants aren't paying attention or engaging meaningfully with the decisions. This can happen either because the question is too trivial and they can't see why they're being asked (like approving the minutes of the last meeting) or too big and daunting so they don't even know where to start in the discussion (like the nuclear reactor in Parkinson's Law of Triviality example).
It shows that the questions don't have significant stakes. If people don't care enough to take decisions for AND against, maybe the frontier is somewhere else. The body is not engaging on that frontier.
It can also mean that the real decisions are being made somewhere else. If they are, then whatever that decision-making process is, it should become canonical, instead of hiding behind what seems to be a meaningless voting process.
I'd say it's more bad than good, but not exclusively bad. It's possible that the body has wrestled through their disputes in some sort of discussion already. The question under vote is already a compromise. I think that's rare, though. Few compromises are perfect, and they usually leave a residue of a few holdout votes.
@evan Especially if everyone said "Entirely bad" !
@evan More bad than good. For almost any question worth asking, there's more than one reasonable answer, and unanimity suggests that a dissent wasn't heard.
Consensus is fine, unanimity is a bad sign.