Why good strategy is not consensus
- OKR Institut
- May 7
- 2 min read
In many organisations, consensus is an unspoken leadership principle: decisions should be made with as little conflict as possible, strategic initiatives should "get everyone's attention" and offend no one.
It sounds fair, but it's dangerous. Strategy doesn't thrive on consensus, it thrives on alignment. The desire to include all perspectives leads to the watering down of goals – until, in the end, the only thing left is what everyone agreed to.
Strategy needs attitude
But trying to give equal weight to all voices prevents the very thing that strategy is supposed to achieve: clear priorities, deliberate exclusions and a direction that others can follow. Leadership, then, is not about pleasing everyone - it is about taking responsibility.
Of course, strategy requires the inclusion of relevant perspectives. But it doesn't end with the lowest common denominator - it ends with a decision. A decision that supports, guides and can withstand conflict. Strategic clarity comes when consensus is no longer possible - and someone is willing to take a stand.
Anyone who wants to do good strategic work therefore needs the ability to lead in areas of tension. Not against people, but with them - but not at the expense of effectiveness. In short, leadership is where decisions are made. Even if not everyone likes them.
Strategy needs clarity, not consensus!
Effective strategy always involves making a choice - and deliberately not pursuing other options. This is uncomfortable, sometimes unpopular, and almost always associated with internal tensions. But it is only through this focus that true effectiveness can be achieved.
When all perspectives are given equal weight in workshops or strategy processes, the result is a watered-down hodgepodge of goals, actions and buzzwords. It may feel democratic - but it's not strategic.
Compromise is the opposite of strategy
Leadership teams must learn to manage this tension: between the desire for harmony and the need for clear prioritisation. Strategy can polarise. It can also hurt. Because it is the answer to the question: What is so important that we prefer it to all other options - even if it means enduring resistance?
Reflection questions:
Which strategic initiatives in your company were created "only" for reasons of consensus?
Are there issues that are distracting you and your team from what's important - but nobody's talking about them?
Do any of the 5 consensus traps in the mini-guide apply to you and your team?