This part of Brad Appleton's post in the Crystal Clear Yahoo! group grabbed my attention:
I've seen many teams that claim to be driven by "consensus", but they really aren't. They instead do a "majority rule" where, as long as say 75% or more agree, then the proposal is accepted. The minority gets silenced and their issues don't get discussed.
At first, it may seem like a good idea to follow the democratic vote -- after all, democracy is a Good Thing™, right? However, thinking about it further, going with the majority vote might not be the best way to go. Next time when you're voting on something among your team, spare a moment to think about whether a majority vote decision is your best option. It might be, or might not be. Your call.
The worst case? You might end up realizing later that it was indeed a step to the wrong direction when you've already eroded your team into a group of politicians.
A better option? Negotiating a "true" consensus could in certain situations be preferable over a majority vote.
A contrived example: your team is on top of a mountain and you need to figure out a way to get down from there. The options are to climb, to fly, to parachute, or to take a cab. One of the team is afraid of heights. Now, if the majority votes for grabbing a parachute, should the one afraid of heights grab a parachute as well?
The point is that in some cases, the goal should be to come up with a decision that everyone can commit to instead of a decision that the majority commits to.
Lasse writes about voting and consensus:
At first, it may seem like a good idea to follow the democratic vote -- after all, democracy is a Good Th...
Read more...
What is a better option then? I thought that majority vote is lesser of evils...