Defining Consensus: What Does It Mean To “Own” a Decision?

Cooperation, collaboration and consensus are part of NetApp’s culture. Partly we feel that it makes for a better work environment, but also that it leads to better decisions and better alignment. However, consensus can lead to paralysis if carried too far. Simply giving one person ownership for a decision – they can do whatever they want – would certainly be much faster. How do you balance between these two extremes? What does it mean to be the “owner” of a decision? 

Dan, our CEO, has very strong views on culture, so a few years ago, when I was struggling with these issues as a manager, I asked his advice on what it means to delegate the ownership of a decision to someone. He said:

When I delegate a decision, I want the owner to identify the key stakeholders, and bring them to a consensus on the right plan, if possible. If they fail, then bring the decision back to me, probably at my staff meeting. (I am sometimes a key stakeholder, so don’t forget about me when driving to consensus!)

The trickiest issue here defining consensus. Even when people have rough agreement, they may differ slightly on details. Does consensus mean 100% agreement? If not, who determines whether consensus has been reached? What does it mean to “own” a decision if you still have to reach consensus?

I asked Dan all of these questions, and he said:

If the owner and key stakeholders cannot reach agreement, then I’d like them to bring the decision back to me, generally at my staff meeting, and preferably in the form of different recommendations to choose from.

But everyone should be aware that I have a strong bias to accept the owner’s recommendation. This bias helps to define consensus.

Consensus doesn’t mean that you agree 100% with the owner. It means that you believe the owners plan is fundamentally broken, and you want to try to convince me of that, despite my bias to accept the owner’s recommendation. I am not interested in arguments that “the owner’s plan is good, but mine is better.” Go convince the owner.

On the other hand, decision owners better be careful about ignoring input from key stakeholders, because if a stakeholder thinks a plan is really busted, then I do want to hear about that!

I love this definition, because it describes consensus operationally, instead of getting bogged down in theoretical philosophy. If you are a stakeholder trying to decide whether to withhold consensus, consider whether your case is so strong that you want to argue it in front of Dan’s staff. (And remember, Dan’s bias is with the owner!) But if you are an owner, and a key stakeholder is objecting, consider whether your case is so strong that you want to argue it in front of Dan. Maybe you should work harder to accommodate the stakeholder’s concern and reach consensus. I bet your plan will be stronger for it.

As near as I can tell, this is Dan's ownership model for pretty much everything. I can't think of many decisions where Dan has told the owner, “You can do whatever you want, and I’ll just support it.” On the other hand, for many areas it is very clear who the owner is, and unless people think there is a serious, serious issue with the owner’s plan, they unlikely to withhold consent.

I’m using Dan and his staff as an example, but obviously, managers who own a decision can apply this model recursively to their own staff, as they delegate further down.

Comments

[prashanth]

trickiest game, played according to situations.winner will be the person who will take all the inputs and make strategy.

[TM]

The thing about consensus is that it stops once the actual decision is made. To "own" a decision means you're the guy held 100% accountable for the outcome of that decision (hero or goat). The other influencers' jobs or reputations aren't on the line - the owner's is. I suspect that's why Dan bias is with the "owner" (he can fire a goat with a clear conscience :-D). TM

[rick multiformpaper]

"Own" used to be a nice word, like "gay"

[Shibin Zhang]

This should be a Netapp internal topic. To outsiders like me, not matter who owns the decission, it's Netapp's decission.

[usome]

This should be a Netapp internal topic. To outsiders like me, not matter who owns the decission, it's Netapp's decission.