Consensus vs Collaborative Leadership = Business Politics

Ah, leadership. The responsibility of running a team to achieve…something. Whether it be to increase sales, score a goal, raise a family, or pillage and burn, leadership has been a necessary factor in, basically, all of human history. Some are born to lead, most are born to follow etc. etc. you get my drift. In the grand scheme of things, leadership has developed many different forms to overcome obstacles and advance the progress of whatever group that required its practice.

"If I die in battle, you will avenge me."

“If I die in battle, you will avenge me.”

In the workforce, we have reached two ways a leader can manage his team:

Collaborative and Consensus

Collaborative Leadership revolves around a few select leaders working together to create plans for their respective teams. This is focused more on the singular than it is as a group. As one main leader takes on the weight and responsibilities of the team, this creates a faster, more focused and straightforward approach to meeting your goals. This leaves less room for a community to voice the possibility for better options.

Look at it this way:

China, however you feel about them, is a prime example of this. Where they have a few select leaders that run everything, they can plan for far longer into the future as well as have the ability to enact plans at a much faster rate. Using this model, they’ve built hundreds of massive cities in preparation for people to move out and into new places. Now, with being able to enact plans faster, comes the ability to have unplanned mishaps. The ability to plan and execute faster, means there is a lot of room for error.


Consensus Leadership relies on the ability of the team to come to a proper and concise conclusion. The focus on this is to have a group, each with their own individual perceptions on how to enact a plan, coming together in some form of democracy. This creates everyones input and put the responsibility on the team instead of just one individual.

Look at it this way:

The United States is a democratic establishment. We have many public figures who have their input on certain topics and represent all sides of many ideologies representing citizens in the country. When a bill comes into office, they all vote. If they cannot come to a conclusion, then they remake the bill, then vote on it again. This creates a more concise and established plan to benefit all parties. Unfortunately, because their are so many hands in the pot, this could be a more time consuming process.

The overall views of both have their extreme benefits. If the plan needs to be enacted on a shorter time span, then Collaborate leadership would work best, but if you want a more concise and well examines plan, you want to look more towards Consensus. Both can be used interchangeably to fit the desires of the respected plan, but it comes down to figuring out which one is necessary to get the job done.