I went to dinner with Omar today. He's a good friend. I'm never quite sure which of us is the mentor when we get together, I get so much out of chatting with him, and yet he insists it's the other way around. So we were talking about team leadership, and what's important in team. He asked me, "What does consensus decision mean to you?" So speaking from my unbounded ignorance I said, "I dunno... everyone compromises, everyone agrees, I guess." We talked about consensus leadership, and how on his team, he is always looking for consensus. He's thought about this stuff a lot. His guidlines for consensus decision making were:
1. Everyone gets the chance to have their opinion heard until they feel it has been understood (even if not agreed on).
2. The decision cannot violate the character, core beliefs, or core values of any of the members of the team.
3. The decision doesn't have to be unanimous, but it's not carried until everyone is willing to speak as a team. That means that those who don't agree with the decision still support it, and will represent it as a team voice. So in the end, everyone "agrees," whether they do or not.
I don't know if I've been exceptional about this. Partly I haven't had to be since I've been the founder of our ministry here. But then some of this stuff I do intuitively with people that work with me, and I see it working in the team I left to my successor. In any case, this consensus stuff has a huge effect on the old style of "great man" leadership, which doesn't work so well anymore. I think "great men" fall victim to the myth of omni-competence, and rob themselves of the benefits of team leadership.
The new "great man" is the one who gives power away, empowers the snot out of whomever possible, takes the risk on people.
