Consent versus consensus

Use when

• A group is stuck seeking agreement nobody can reach.
• Decisions are being watered down until everyone can live with a version that achieves nothing.
• The cost of a slightly wrong decision is lower than the cost of no decision.

Do not use when

• The decision is irreversible and high-stakes, where genuine consensus may be worth its cost.
• The group lacks the trust for objections to be raised honestly, which makes silence meaningless.

Inputs required

• A concrete proposal
• A group willing to state objections
• A standard for what counts as a reasoned objection

Procedure

1. 01

   Put a specific proposal on the table

   Consent needs something to object to. An open discussion cannot be consented to.

2. 02

   Ask for objections, not agreement

   The question is “is there a reason this would cause harm or is outside our bounds?” — not “do you like it?”. Preference is not an objection.

3. 03

   Test each objection

   A reasoned objection identifies a specific harm. “I would do it differently” is a preference and does not block.

4. 04

   Integrate or proceed

   Amend the proposal to address genuine objections. If none remain, the decision passes without anyone having to endorse it.

5. 05

   Set a review date

   Consent is easier to give for a decision that will be revisited. Making it explicitly temporary removes most of the remaining resistance.