Faux Consensus and the Least Bad Decision Trap

We will get back to talking about AI soon. I promise. Those that were waiting for me to take a break from the AI, here we go!

Today, let’s talk about an older and much messier technology: humans trying to make decisions together.

I have been thinking about data governance for a new project I am working on, and it keeps reminding me that, in plain language, governance is the rules and norms a community agrees to play by. Not just what tools we use, but how we decide. Who gets to say yes. How concerns are raised. What happens when we disagree.

In many of the communities I have participated in, especially boards and technical groups, people say they use “consensus.” But what they often mean is something closer to unanimity. Or worse, something I have started to think of as faux consensus.

Consensus is a real process

When I say consensus, I mean a formal decision-making process. It is not unanimity. It is not wearing people down until they stop objecting. And it is not the absence of voting.

Some forms of consensus include structured votes, temperature checks, or gradients of agreement. What makes them consensus-based is not whether people raise hands. It is that the goal is to integrate concerns and reach a decision the group can live with, rather than simply winning by majority or, in even less healthy communities…exhaustion.

Consensus is both a decision method and a reflection of cultural values. It usually relies on facilitation techniques to help people surface trade-offs and concerns. When it works, it can support participation, trust, and learning.

The problem is not consensus. The problem is when groups use the word consensus without defining the process.

Why groups drift toward unanimity

In technical communities in particular, I see a strong fear of conflict. Even though there are always a few people who seem comfortable with disagreement, they are usually the minority. Most people want harmony. They want everyone to be happy. They want to avoid being the person who says no or try to make a decision based entirely on math and numbers. Unfortunately, humans are more complex than simple numbers, and decisions often have many shades of grey.

So instead of choosing a real decision process, groups drift toward unanimity. No one wants to call a vote. No one wants to be responsible for a decision that not everyone loves. Discussions stretch on and on in search of something that offends no one.

This feels kind. It feels collaborative. It feels safe.

But it often produces weak decisions.

Faux consensus and the Least Bad Decision Trap

This is what I mean by faux consensus. It looks like agreement on the surface, but underneath there is no shared understanding of how a decision is actually made.

In faux consensus, the decision process tends to reward the most patient person in the room. The one who can outlast everyone else. The one who is willing to keep revisiting the same topic until others are too tired to push back.

The outcome is often what I call the Least Bad Decision Trap. A choice that is not offensive to anyone, but also not particularly strong or clear. It may not be the best technical option. It may not be the best hire. It may not be the most courageous strategy. It is simply the one that causes the least discomfort.

Over time, this produces negative emergent behavior.

People get exhausted.
People stop caring as much.
People become risk averse.
People quietly disengage.

Burnout and quiet quitting are not just personal failures. They are system outputs.

Why majority rule can be healthier

I actually think majority rule is often healthier than faux consensus.

At least majority rule is explicit. A decision is made. The group knows how it was made. The majority supported it. The minority was heard. There is closure.

And when the decision turns out to be wrong later, it is easier for the group to revisit it. There is a shared memory of how and why it happened. This is especially true if you have ways to revisit decisions in…that’s right, your defined decision-making process.

Faux consensus hides accountability. It creates the illusion of agreement while making it very hard to learn from mistakes.

The real problem is undefined process

What really damages groups is not disagreement. It is mismatched expectations.

When a group says “we use consensus” but does not define what that means, everyone brings their own assumptions. Some people think it means unanimity. Some think it means no objections. Some think it means the chair decides when things feel calm. Some think it means whoever speaks last wins.

Without an explicit process, people get upset and confused. They feel unheard. They feel misled. They feel like the rules changed mid-game.

If you are going to say you use consensus, you need to write down what that means.

For example: - How are concerns raised? - What does a block mean? - Are there time limits? - Who facilitates? - What happens if agreement cannot be reached?

Saying “we use consensus” without these details is not a process. It is a vibe.

Why I am revisiting this now

I first wrote about this four years ago in a post called Are You Really Using Consensus? While working on governance for a new community, I found myself returning to the same questions. Not because I have universally solved them, but because I keep seeing the same pattern emerge when decision-making is left implicit.

This post is an expansion of that earlier thinking, shaped by more board rooms, more technical debates, and more lessons learned about how easily good intentions turn into fragile systems.

If we care about participation, trust, and learning, then we need to be just as thoughtful about how we decide as about what we build.

Consensus can be powerful. Majority rule can be appropriate. Different kinds of decisions need different kinds of processes. What matters most is that the process is explicit and shared.

Closing

Decision-making is not just a mechanism for choosing. It is a system that shapes who stays, who leaves, and what kind of community is possible.
​
From the Tangled System,
​
-Kate

And an Invitation:

If this post made you think about how humans make decisions, don’t worry, we really are getting back to AI next.

I host a series called AI n’ Playin’, which is an open, low-pressure space to share what we are experimenting with in AI. Show and tell for grown-ups. Bring your half-baked ideas, strange prompts, creative projects, or things that made you laugh.

The goal is simple: - See what each other is working on
- Learn together
- Be curious
- Be a little silly

If you want a place to explore AI without needing to be polished or profound, you are very welcome.

The next session is Thursday February 5th at 9am Pacific. Sign-up here.