Thoughts on Consensus

I used to live in an intentional Christian community in Durham, NC, called the Iredell House. It was a wonderful experience of community life that I believe helped form me positively for pastoral ministry. However, one of the struggles of living in the Iredell community was our commitment to consensus models of decision making. As a house (7 permanent residents), we had to come to consensus on all decisions before we could move forward on anything. This worked out some of time and not so well at others. I left Durham with the conviction that consensus was the way the church ought to operate, having spent several years in community with this model. Even still, its deficiencies always plagued  me. Once I got into the parish as an Elder, my commitment to consensus as an all-holy model faded quickly. It just wasn't practical. Upon reflection, I realized that there were times in the Iredell house that the commitment to consensus actually stymied our ability to move and grow. Oftentimes, we were subject to the whims of individual dysfunction. I know I have colleagues who greatly disagree with me on this, but my experience has shown me that a leader must maintain a balance between consensus and autocratic rule. In this vein, I ran across an excerpt from Edwin Friedman's book, Generation to Generation. Friedman, of course, is the godfather of Family Systems Theory. He articulates what I'm getting at much more clearly.

Friedman proposes that a continuum or spectrum of leadership qualities exists in most institutions, be they families, churches, or corporations. On one end of this spectrum is what he terms the Charismatic and on the other end he terms Consensus. (noting that you cannot force a person into any end of that spectrum, that any leader may at times exhibit qualities across the spectrum). Following are some excerpts from his book Generation to Generation, looking at his understanding of the failings of extreme consensus models of leadership.

A counterpoint to the charisma philosophy of leadership is consensus. The strategies at this end of the leadership continuum, while designed to avoid the dilemmas of the opposite extreme, often wind up with similar effects. The basic emphasis in the consensus approach is on the will of the group. Consensus is prepared to wait longer for “results,” being more concerned with the development of a cohesive infrastructure. It tends to value peace over progress and personal relationships (feelings) over ideas. It abhors polarization. In such a setting, the individualism of a leader is more likely to create anxiety than reduce it. Since the will of the group is supposed to develop out of its own personality, rather than come down from the top, the function of the leader becomes more that of a resource person or an “enabler.”

            Some of the basic problems with the consensus approach to leadership are as follows: (1) The family led by consensus will tend to be less imaginative. The major creative ideas of our species have tended to be come from individuals rather than groups. Prophets are far more likely to hear “the call” in the wilderness. The muse rarely strikes the artist in a crowd. The world’s most important ideas, philosophical, religious, and scientific, have tended to come to people in their own solitude. It is not that the consensus approach gives people less time to be alone but, rather, that it discourages the initiative to be solitary. (2) Leaderless groups are more easily panicked and the anxiety tends to cascade. The circuit-breaker effect of self is missing in an undifferentiated crowd. For all its advantages over autocracy, democracy can have a more difficult time dealing with anxiety when there is no self-differentiated individual who can say, “Here I stand!” (3)Emphasis on consensus gives strength to the extremists. They can continue to push the carrot of unity further out on the togetherness stick as the price of their cooperation. In some absurd turnaround, when the main goal of a family is consensus, they actually make it harder to achieve that goal because they put themselves in the position of being blackmailed by those least willing to cooperate. This is as true in marriage as in the vestry. (4) Consensus is no guarantee against xenophobia or polarization. The paranoid dangers of emotional interdependency enumerated in the charismatic approach are also present in consensus approach. An emotional system led by consensus can become equally cultic. Paradoxically, as a consensus-based approach to family leadership nears its goal, the degree of emotional fusion that results is likely to create or exacerbate the very problems its approach was designed to avoid.

 Following, Friedman discusses some basic concepts and misinterpretations of the idea of leadership self-differentiation. He uses these arguments to counter the “false dichotomy” of the charisma-consensus spectrum.

            The basic concept of leadership through self-differentiation is this: If a leader will take primary responsibility for his or her own position as “head” and work to define his or her own goals and self, while staying in touch with the rest of the organism, there is a more than reasonable chance that the body will follow. There may be initial resistance but, if the leader can stay in touch with the resisters, the body will usually go along.

            This emphasis on a leader’s self-differentiation is not to be confused with independence or some kind of selfish individuality. On the contrary, we are talking here about the ability of a leader to be a self while still remaining a part of the system. It is the most difficult thing in the world in any family. And yet, when accomplished, the process will convert the dependency that is the sources of most sabotage to the leader’s favor instead.

            There are three distinct but interrelated components to leadership through self-differentiation, keeping in mind that successful leadership means not only moving a family toward its goals but also maximizing its functioning, as well as the health and survival of both the family and its leader. First and foremost, the leader must stay in touch. The concept is basically organic: For any part of an organism to have a continuous or lasting effect, it obviously must stay connected. This is not nearly as easy as it may seem. …It is far easier for a head to remain attached if it is content to merge its “self” with the body. Any leader can stay in touch if he or she does not try to stand out. The trick…is to be able to differentiate self and still remain in touch despite the body’s efforts to counter such differentiation.

            The second central component is the capacity and willingness of the leader to take non-reactive, clearly conceived, and clearly defined positions. …The functioning of any organism, often its survival, and certainly its evolution are directly dependent on the capacity of its “head” to…define self and continue to stay in touch. Note here, with regard to safeguarding against sabotage, that the leader is not trying to define the followers, only himself or herself. …It is their need for a head that will move them.. As was said, it is hardly that simple.

            Some may regard this as manipulation or as acting unilaterally. But if leaders want progress, in choosing between the poles of individuality and togetherness, they had better err in the direction of the former, less they be the ones who are manipulated. Some may think this borders on narcissism, but those who cannot distinguish self-differentiation from narcissism have no comprehension of the dilemmas or the value of leadership. They have confused pathology with power and the healing potential of properly self-conceived power. When spiritual leaders must defend time-hallowed traditions from the onslaught of contemporary backsliding and erosion, all the while jeopardizing their jobs, health, families, and resolve, it is time for a healthy infusion of what those who fear such strength mistake for narcissism, or they are not very likely to survive. But unilateralism is less likely to be narcissistic if the leader is also taking care to remain connected. That is once again the difference between differentiation  and “in-dependence.” It is independence or autonomy, without staying in touch, that is most likely to end in divorce.