As I write this, there’s a really stupid article from the AP wire about how both U.S. candidates for President are lobbing the same criticism at each other. Both Bush and Kerry are saying that the other one is "short on accomplishments." No matter what your political affiliations, I think a lot of us are not looking forward to the endless minutia of campaign reporting over the next few months. I know I don’t care what color underwear Dubya is wearing today, but I’m sure the media will report it.
The campaign also brings into focus the futility of trying to reach "consensus" on anything. When you get more than 3 people in a room and present a problem to them, odds are good that they won’t all agree on how to solve the problem. Yet as in politics, cubicle-dwellers everywhere are forced to swallow the idea that everyone has to "be on the same team" and agree on everything.
That’s a bunch of horse pucky.
As far as I’m concerned, the word consensus should be thrown out and replaced with the world "compromise." People do not bring the same experiences and thoughts to the table, so they shouldn’t be expected to agree absolutely on everything. "Consensus" usually really means that one person is going to make all the rules and expect everyone else to agree.
The problem is that people are not sheep, and any time they are forced to behave like them, resentment ensues. I’m wary of companies that foist the whole "team" concept on their employees. It’s a thinly disguised dictatorship, which stifles innovation and ruins morale. When employees have solutions shoved down their throats, they often are miserable and turnover is high.
The answer is compromise. Most people can’t get through the day without a few good compromises. ("Okay, we’ll go to the snack bar today, but tomorrow I get to pick where we go to lunch!") A group that can compromise can be effective, whether it’s a posse of politicos or programmers.