The Cost of Consensus: Playing It Safe is the Riskiest Move

In the world of work, consensus is often seen as the holy grail. Meetings are filled with nodding heads and carefully worded agreements. Strategies are meticulously crafted to avoid ruffling feathers. And ideas are softened, their sharp edges dulled, in the name of alignment. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: in the pursuit of consensus, organisations often sacrifice their most powerful asset—originality.

Take a moment to consider a common paradox we address. Businesses value innovation, yet many operate in ways that systematically undermine it. Innovation challenges the status quo, invites disagreement, and requires conviction. But in a culture obsessed with avoiding conflict, how can true innovation see the light of day?

Consensus feels safe. After all, when everyone agrees, there's less risk of failure, right? Wrong. History is littered with examples of businesses that played it safe and lost. Think of the myriad companies that played it safe, only to find themselves outmanoeuvred by bolder competitors. Nokia, Kodak, Blockbuster, BlackBerry, Yahoo, and Borders are all prime examples of companies that maintained a conservative, consensus-driven approach while their markets rapidly evolved.

History shows us time and again that excessive caution is often the riskiest strategy of all. The internal consensus at these companies was clear: change wasn't worth the risk. The result? A meteoric fall as competitors embraced the very innovations they shied away from.

Contrast this with Amazon's pivot to cloud computing, Netflix's shift to streaming, Microsoft's cloud-first strategy, Adobe's move to subscription software, Nintendo's bet on the Wii, and Fujifilm's expansion into healthcare. These companies succeeded by having strong convictions about where their markets were heading. And it paid off.

When businesses prioritise consensus, they end up with watered-down ideas. The sharp, spiky concepts that could differentiate them in the market are smoothed out into something bland and forgettable. It’s the tyranny of the middle—where no one is offended, but no one is inspired either.

This phenomenon isn’t limited to products or strategies; it applies to leadership as well. Leaders who aim to please everyone often end up pleasing no one. Their messages lack clarity, their decisions lack conviction, and their teams lack direction. As the saying goes, if you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.

Disagreement isn’t easy. It’s uncomfortable, time-consuming, and sometimes downright messy. But it’s also where the magic happens. When people feel free to challenge ideas and offer alternative perspectives, the result is often a better, more robust solution. Pixar, for example, is famous for its “brain trust” meetings, where candid feedback is not only encouraged but expected. The result? A string of critically acclaimed films that have defined the animation industry.

But here’s the catch: disagreement only works when it’s rooted in respect and shared purpose. Without these, it can devolve into conflict for conflict’s sake—a destructive force rather than a constructive one.

So how do you balance the need for alignment with the need for originality? The answer lies in what I call the “creative third way.” It requires space to be created to enable the organisation to transcend binary choices and find a solution that marries the best of both worlds. It’s not about choosing between consensus and conflict; it’s about creating a culture where both can coexist.

One example of this is Bridgewater Associates, the hedge fund led by Ray Dalio. Bridgewater is known for its radical transparency—a culture where employees are encouraged to challenge each other, but always in service of the organisation’s shared goals. Decisions aren’t made through consensus or hierarchy; they’re made through rigorous debate and analysis. The result is a company that consistently outperforms its peers.

If the creative third way is to flourish, it requires strong leadership. Leaders must put support frameworks in place and set the tone by demonstrating that disagreement is not only acceptable but essential for growth. They must create environments where people feel safe to speak up, knowing their ideas will be considered on their merit, not their popularity.

But perhaps most importantly, leaders must have the courage to make decisions that won’t please everyone. They must be willing to champion contrarian ideas, even if it means facing criticism or resistance. Because the truth is, the most transformative ideas are rarely the most popular—at least not at first.

So, where does this leave us? Perhaps it’s time to ask tougher questions: where in your organisation are you playing it too safe? Which ideas have been smoothed over in the name of consensus, and which opportunities have been missed as a result? More importantly, what could you achieve if you had the courage to embrace disagreement and champion originality?

Ready to challenge consensus in your organisation? Let’s talk.