I’ve been thinking a bit about the distinction between the two lately, now that I’ve got some distance from the service hell that I’ve been in since earning tenure. Because you know what? They aren’t identical.
Consensus is about a group of people with disparate views hashing shit out and coming to a plan that every person agrees with, or that the vast majority of people agree with.
Compromise is something different. Compromise generally involves coming up with a plan that will work in the best possible way, in spite of the fact that most people would rather have something else. Everybody makes concessions, and nobody is terribly “happy.” Indeed, happiness isn’t the goal, nor is any sort of general agreement. Instead, everybody is pretty much losing something that they care a whole lot about, but they agree to go with the plan anyway, because it is better than the alternative.
Consensus is warm and fuzzy, and it indicates a certain optimism that people with diverse views can meet for hours upon hours and achieve some shiny, happy place of equanimity. And it indicates that once that shiny, happy place is discovered, that it will be the best possible solution. Everyone will be pleased with the solution.
Compromise is, well, cold and jagged. It assumes that consensus among disagreeing parties is impossible. Everybody has to give up something. Nobody is terribly overjoyed at the arrived at plan, but they agree to it anyway, because it’s what needs to be done to move forward. And nobody thinks that it’s the “best” solution (See: giving things up) but it often is the only solution that is actually a solution.
Here’s the thing: lotsa people, often people in leadership (administrative) positions, they talk about leadership in terms of “consensus-building.” In that version of leadership, everybody ends up happy. Nobody’s the bad guy. Least of all the “leader” (oftentimes figured as the administrator).
Except.
When you’ve got lots of people with strong disagreements, all of which have their merits, aiming for consensus is often aiming for the lowest common denominator. It’s not actually the “best” solution – just the one with least conflict. And so what you get at the end is something that is mostly valueless. Once you take away all the conflicts, sure, you arrive at consensus, consensus on something that is lukewarm and squishy and doesn’t really mean much. Sure, nobody’s pissed, and I guess if that’s your goal, not to piss anybody off, that’s grand. Except probably you haven’t addressed the issue that made you meet for hours in the first place.
In contrast, when you’ve got lots of people with strong disagreements, all of which have their merits, aiming for compromise means that you’re setting people up for a street-fight. Everybody’s going to have to duke it out and battle for something they believe in, and there will be winners and losers. And even the winners are going to lose something. Everybody ends up bloody and bruised. And everybody ends up angry. But. At the end of the day, you do end up with something that means something, something that’s worth something. Now, the down side is that there is always a bad guy, a fall guy, if you go for the compromise thing. Somebody will be to blame. Regardless of how good the ultimate plan is, and regardless of how well it actually works.
It’s worth noting that consensus is not something that is possible in a model that privileges shared governance between faculty and administration. Indeed, in all those university-wide committees, filled with faculty members, compromise, and not consensus, is the order of the day. The only people who privilege consensus are people who don’t really respect the power of debate, the power of disagreement. It’s about people who don’t want to ask tough questions or to answer them. Compromise requires the parties involved to meet each other halfway. Consensus requires people to pretend that there is no halfway.
For my money, I’d rather be the one to blame for something that means something than the one responsible for something that means nothing. But, at least from my current vantage point, it seems that this is precisely the reason that I am utterly ill-suited for any sort of administrative position. Because I care a whole lot more about getting things done, no matter who gets hurt – even if it’s me – in the process, than I do about making people happy or making people feel good about the decisions that get made. To me, being a leader means that you are able to convince people to compromise, even when they don’t want to compromise. It doesn’t mean trying to get everybody to like you and trying to get everybody to do a group fucking hug after every decision. To me, being a leader means being willing to take some hits, and to take some responsibility, as opposed to outsourcing it to the crowd. Consensus-building isn’t about being a good leader, in my experience. It’s about being a coward. It’s about a lack of vision. It’s about refusing to make the tough decisions. And it doesn’t make people like you more or respect you more. It just means that you don’t have to give people straight answers, and being able to pretend that your hands are clean.
Real leaders have dirty hands. Real leaders stand up to people who don’t like their decisions, they own them and they explain them. Real leaders make decisions, though they might consult with other people before making them, and they don’t make their decisions by committee.
I have no interest in a leader who values consensus over compromise. Frankly, a person who values consensus over compromise isn’t a leader at all.
This is awesome. I want you to be MY leader.
That is all.
I’m confused by why you think this means you wouldn’t be a good academic administrator. In shitty dysfunctional institutions, yeah, the truth is avoided to maintain short-term comfort. But in quality institutions with a view to the long term based on truth seeking, your attitude and approach is highly valued.
are
CPP – shitty dysfunctional institutions are the norm, not the exception. And when you’re a lady? The shitty dysfunctionalness is not something that you’ll survive with your career intact. Should somebody fight the good fight? Certainly. Is it going to be me? Not on your life.
Oh, Crazy, this is a much more articulate summary of my own conclusion following ‘leadership training’ a few years ago – no way am I going to take on a ‘leadership’ role in the sense that this institution uses the word. It’s clearly painful to do properly (and I still have far too much desire to be approved of and too little local social network to handle that well) and especially for the younger female career damaging to try. The institution is set up to encourage NOT doing it properly and I see no point in wasting my time on that. Plus, I increasingly long to call ‘bullshit’ when I see it – BAD FORM, when one is female especially…
Thanks for articulating what has frustrated me about my own department’s “consensus” model. My experience there is that, underneath the surface agreement/warm and fuzzy, there’s a whole lot of seething rage which is just waiting for an excuse to overflow.
I think it’s also worth linking consensus vs compromise to the earlier discussion of collegiality. Again, in my experience, a big institutional emphasis on “collegiality” goes along with consensus as the leadership/action model. In this context though, collegiality isn’t what you defined it as earlier (which I prefer to think of professionalism) but exactly that “let’s all get along to go along” persona which has such horrible consequences for women (and people of color and queers) in the academy. Here I’m thinking of those “collegiality” clauses that become an obstacle to tenure or promotion.
*I’m not trying/wishing to be offensive or inflammatory. By “non-breeders,” I’m shorthanding anyone who’s not living up to the married-with-kids sexual norm, whether by virtue of sexuality or reproductive choice.
Oops. Ignore the asterisk comment.
I’m suggesting that if you think you would enjoy being an administrator in a non-dysfunctional administrative environment where your administrative talents would be valued, there are ways for you to pursue that end.
heh. A big chunk of the hell of my last couple of years comes from my seeing decisions made when I was department chair as compromises (ratified by votes) and some of my colleagues refusing to abide by them because we hadn’t reached consensus. Demanding consensus is also a classic derailing/delaying tactic.
Ok, but I also think that there’s a way to compromise in which people can feel like they’ve been heard, even if they don’t “win.” That feels a bit more like consensus, rather than a “street fight,” and hopefully the best compromise or the best idea still wins out. And it’s a lot easier if people are working toward a common goal, even if they disagree how to achieve that goal, rather than working for themselves. The former is about leadership. The latter is about who you are leading. I *absolutely* agree about owning your decisions and being able to explain them, even when they’re going to make some people angry.
I would not want to be a chair or dean in an institution where consensus is valued above all else. At some places, being a real leader just isn’t worth it. I think my willingness to compromise and my skill at reaching compromises has benefitted me, but then I am not at a “shitty dysfunctional institution” (knock on wood). However, I think there are at least three approaches to making decisions.
(1) Consensus: practically everyone ends up agreeing on everything, and so instead of a vote everyone enjoys, as you say, “a group fucking hug.” Yuck.
(2) Compromise: a deal is negotiated in which everyone makes concessions, and then the deal is approved unanimously. (Instead of a hug, a handshake.)
(3) Majority rule: after extensive discussion, someone calls the question, and there is a vote. A majority of those voting (or, in some cases, a supermajority) authorizes a recommendation. In some instances, there can be a minority report.
You need (2) or (3) when you need “a solution” and you cannot wait for the truth to become undeniable and for a reasonable consensus to emerge. (2) has the advantage of avoiding “tyranny of the majority” (e.g., the department votes 11-9 to deprive the 9 of their privileges). On the other hand, I’m not comfortable with compromise when it “requires the parties involved to meet each other halfway”; I hear the word “halfway” and I remember something about King Solomon and a baby. Seeking compromise is useful in many instances, but it is (for example) a horrible way to make departmental hiring or promotion recommendations.
I think what you call consensus — which is how it\’s often done — is ”consensus lite”: groups that take consensus seriously actually take a lot of time to understand what is important to people and ensure not that it\’s the lowest common denominator, but that whatever is decided is something everyone can live with. But part of that is also agreeing on what criteria should be. (I.e. for curriculum change, it’s student learning that is important, not your enrollments.)
That said, I totally want you running any change operation; given your style, you just need to have a colleague who spends some time focusing on the people who have to change!
[...] while back, Dr. Crazy posted an excellent essay on Consensus v. Compromise. It meant a lot to me, because I’ve always preferred to think of myself as a [...]
So… this post and some of the comments? And some of the recent ones? Made me think more, but I cannot blog these thoughts at my place.
My first week back with my colleagues reminded me of something neither of us mentioned: we are working from a mindset where we assume that everyone wants either compromise or consensus, i.e., that they want some sort of guidance towards common goals and that they are willing to do what is decided by their peers or by the administration.
The sad fact is that there are people who will never buy in, and will only ever go through the motions if it’s something they just don’t care about or feel is too much work. They will do enough that they cannot be accused of not doing their jobs, and will do the (classroom) teaching and research parts of their jobs well enough – or even very well. But they will also, whether intentionally or inadvertently, prevent any change for the better; through their lack of support and inaction, they will continue to perpetuate old cultures and practices.
When you realize that you work with people who have no intention of ever having a discussion in good faith, who have no real investment in collegiality, it pretty much makes the whole consensus/compromise question moot.
And, in my case, it means going back on the market, although with the luxury of having a job where I can continue to try to improve my teaching and scholarship while doing so.
ADM – First, if you feel like you need to go back on the market in order to find a good situation, know that you’ve got TONS of support (from me, but I suspect from lots of others as well). I won’t lie: I’ve thought a lot about doing that myself. I’m not so dejected in my current position that I feel like it’s a necessity, but I certainly haven’t counted finding another position out. I guess where I am right now is that I really love my house, and I really love my friends. And I LIKE teaching the students I teach. Would I go if a great opportunity came along? Yes. But do I need to get out? No. Because I really don’t think that I’d necessarily be happier – at least not in this moment.
Here’s the difference (seeming the only one!) between your position and mine: I still have faith that the things that make me crazy are not really about the institution – that they are about people, mostly, and people who will either retire or leave in the next few years. My issues aren’t with “culture” so much as they are with individuals. It helps that we just got a new president and that our provost will be out in a year or two. It also helps that I’ve found some service options for myself that are more “independent” and that don’t involve the kind of negotiation (in my department)( in which I’ve had to engage in the past three years (i.e., I’m no longer my department’s “curriculum person”). We’re also going to have a new chair next year. All of this change is scary for many, but I see it as Entirely a Good Thing, at least for me.
I also fully intend to get myself fully promoted as soon as humanly possible, so that I can tell some of the people who won’t retire or leave to fuck right off, and I’ll have the rank to make that ok, precisely because most people in my world are not fully promoted and have no ambition to be. Being a Full Professor will mean a material good in my life, in addition to the (modest) pay raise.
And also: Something I’ve especially realized in the past two weeks. A lot of the angst and horrors I’ve been dealing with are NOT university-wide. They are, to some extent, college-wide, and they certainly are department-wide. But it helps to know that I’ve got allies who don’t think the way that lots of the people I encounter daily think, and it helps to know that I’ve got allies who would support me in the face of a lot of the BS that I encounter.
I say all of this only to tell you that if you’re feeling what you’re feeling? Yes, everywhere has its problems. BUT. If you’re feeling what you described, you can do better. Shit, I’m pissed off and I’m doing better than you’re doing. I’m just cranky.
You are so right: “When you realize that you work with people who have no intention of ever having a discussion in good faith, who have no real investment in collegiality, it pretty much makes the whole consensus/compromise question moot.”
I’m on your side, sister, and I know lots of other people will be as well. Any support you need? Know I’m here.
Thanks! Honestly, what you describe as the good things about your situation are all the good things about mine. I love most of my colleagues across the university. I don’t like everything about the administration, but I believe that they generally want the same things I do, and that some of the decisions I don’t agree with may be better business decisions, even though I think they set in motion poor long-term practices and commitments. I love the students. I love my house. I love the town and its proximity to major airports and many of my oldest friends. I do not want to leave.
But a really unfortunate combination of declining enrollments and relative age of colleagues means that I am likely to be in the same situation for at least another ten years, unless there are several freak accidents. The way the campus and departments are set up also plays a role. We’re one of several departments that are geographically isolated, so I seldom get to spend time in the proximity of the 95% of the colleagues who are great. Without going into detail, I’ll also say that my own background makes me particularly badly equipped to deal with cognitive dissonance on these levels. I don’t want to get to the point where coping takes up so much of my energy that I won’t be able to leave!
Babe, better to find a good situation than to stay in a bad situation hoping for it to get better. Seriously. Yes, there are shitty things about my situation now, but it’s not BAD, and I’m not here waiting for a miracle. And, if things are like what you say, it’s worth it to try to find a place where you feel good! DUDE! Everybody in the whole world says we’re not doing it for the money (a thing I hate, but still) – if we’re “not doing it for the money,” then we should be doing it for the happiness! I think a lot of what you and I have exists everywhere. But. That’s not a reason to stay in the same place. I stay here because a) my house, b) my students c) the fact that I only live 4 hours from my parents and extended family. Oh, and I don’t hate where I live, and I have an international airport 15 minutes from my house. And in general I teach 80 students (or less) on average a semester). I’m seriously giving *nothing up* to live where I live. If I were? I’d feel differently.
You owe them nothing other than what you’ve given. You owe this profession no more than what you’ve given. If you’re not happy, MOVE ON. You are AWESOME, ADM. Don’t stay in a bad situation when you don’t have to.
I can happily report that my classes today have so far been great at reminding me how much I love most of my job. Two students who don’t like my subject who are nevertheless excited to be taking *my* classes. Newbies. And, unfortunately, an entire class embarrassed on my behalf because a colleague opened the door and walked in as I was finishing up with class — and I have just checked my watch, and it is three minutes fast, so I was not even over by the two minutes I thought — cleared his throat as he stood at the head of my seminar table, and said, “and your class runs till when?”
That colleague *will* be retiring soon, thank goodness.
[...] this: I don’t want to get to the point where coping takes up so much of my energy that I won’t be able… I am glad someone else recognizes how much energy coping [...]