On Consensus

Given the state of our current world it would seem that Consensus is in extremely short supply or perhaps it doesn’t exist at all. The unleashing of a tariff war by the United Sates and bloody, violent wars in the Middle East, Ukraine, Russia and the Indian subcontinent corroborate the case that Consensus has all but disappeared from international affairs. The lack of Consensus, however, isn’t just confined to global and regional politics but permeates the world of business as well as our professional, social and personal lives.

Several years ago, while working at IBM, my manager penalised me during my annual appraisal in return for being Consensus-driven. IBM, even today, despite being relatively egalitarian in its approach, is a tall, hierarchy-driven set-up. The reason large corporations put a premium on an authoritarian style of leadership is that their sheer size makes it nearly impossible to get into Consensus mode. If large corporations were to choose multiple perspective building over authority and a cast-in-stone, rule-driven environment, they would certainly miss their quarterly targets. In short, corporations avoid Consensus because they can’t afford it.

The lack of Consensus lies at the root of our over-confidence and our conflicts across all dimensions of life. The absence of meeting of minds leads to disharmony and sometimes even acrimony. This arises when a person feels or a group of people feel that a singular view needs to be upheld as right while all other perspectives are by default wrong. Autocratic dispensations and ideological constructs are enemies of Consensus and we witness this daily in social media.

The Paradox of Democracy

I live in India which is the largest democracy on Earth. Some of our leaders — in the course of its 75 plus years of freedom — have been of autocratic disposition but mostly functioning within the fragile framework of a democracy. The significance of a democracy lies in its characteristic of allowing everyone to be heard. To this extent, it is a cherishable ideal. But the irony of democracy, not just in India but across, lies in it becoming a breeding ground for perpetual dissent; dissent for the sake of dissent.

During my early adulthood I observed when India’s annual Budget was tabled in parliament, the opposition party would tear the Finance Bill apart and be critical of everything. Never was criticism accompanied by positive acclaim. This scenario would repeat itself year after year regardless of which party was in power. A thriving democracy requires both i.e., provision for dissent but also systems and processes that encourage convergence of views after healthy debates. Unfortunately, the latter is mostly absent.

There is this misconceived notion that Consensus is an Eastern tradition whilst the West is obsessed with dissent under the name of democracy. It is true that Eastern cultures have historically been more pre-disposed to Consensus building. Confucianism stressed on group-think, peace and harmony building. Many Japanese corporations have a way stronger manifestation of Consensus than their Western counterparts. Even in authoritarian China, there are elements of Consensus building at some level. However, to claim that Consensus is an exclusively Oriental idea and Democracy is an exclusively Occidental idea is outrightly fallible.

12 Angry Men

The Hollywood movie, 12 Angry Men — released in 1957 — starring Henry Fonda and Lee J Cobb, is a defining example of how lack of Consensus can be overcome to achieve unanimity. I have viewed 12 Angry Men about a half dozen times never once having felt tired of the watch. In fact, every time I watch this movie, I feel blessed with a fresh insight.

The plot revolves around the order of a presiding judge to a jury set up to determine whether a teenager from an impoverished background was or wasn’t guilty of murdering his father. The order directs the jury to achieve unanimity one way or the other and the jurors are forbidden to exit the jury room till they haven’t achieved total concurrence. The protagonist played by Henry Fonda is — at the start of the film — the only juror to call out the teenager as non-guilty.

The movie in a long set of dramatic twists and turns showcases how Fonda sows the seeds for Consensus building. Fonda’s compassionate demeanour, quiet strength and shared leadership style results in all but one of the juror’s (the antagonist played by Lee J Cobb) coming around. But 11-1 was not a verdict that the judge would accept. In the final moments of the film when the climax is unfolding, Fonda goes up to Cobb and helps him put his coat on. It is Fonda’s sense of humility combined with risk taking that frees an innocent teenager from the electric chair.

 To watch the original film free of charge please click here (Courtesy: Internet Archive)

The reason achieving Consensus is so elusive is because from our childhood through our formative years our social systems nurture us to be faithful to our race, religion, sect, nation, and our class to the exclusion of everything else. Gaining consensus is also challenging because it requires deep listening skills and the ability to engage in generative conversations which our education system ignores.

When there is no room for multiple perspectives, we witness acute dissonance the kind that is playing out globally today. If we have to save ourselves as a humanity and the larger ecosystem that we call our home, we need mechanisms and systems that help us express disagreement whilst simultaneously creating pathways to achieve solidarity. If we are able to imbibe universal values in our professional and personal lives, it will help us water down our incredibly complex and chaotic world. Yet, as tall an order as it may sound, achieving Consensus requires just minor mindset shifts. It begins with ‘I’ and ‘me’ and is simpler than we imagine. If you don’t believe me, I highly recommend you watch 12 Angry Men.

You might discover that we are wired to connect.

Shakti Saran is a systems thinker, writer, consultant, and the Founder of Shaktify, an initiative to power changemakers