Think back to the last important decision your lab had to make. Did everyone agree right out of the gate? Or did most people simply nod along and move forward—only for the plan to stall once the meeting ended? That gap between agreement in the room and commitment in the hallway is where many lab decisions quietly fail. Closing it is the work of consensus building, and it is one of the most valuable team decision-making skills a lab manager can develop. That was the central message from Scott Hanton, editorial director of Lab Manager, during his Management Matters webinar, "Building Consensus: Aligning Teams for Stronger Outcomes." Drawing on a 30-year career, Hanton offered lab leaders a practical framework for moving a divided room toward committed action.
Scott Hanton, PhD, editorial director at Lab Manager.
What consensus actually means
Much of the confusion around consensus comes from misunderstanding the word itself. Hanton defines it as a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group, but he is quick to draw the boundaries. Consensus, he explained, begins with a shared understanding that transitions into a shared commitment, all of it resting on trust—trust that people will voice their honest opinions, and trust that once the decision is made, everyone will follow through.
What consensus is not is equally important. "It's not total agreement. We're not going to agree on all the details," Hanton said. "It's not unanimity... And it's certainly not compliance. I'm not forcing people to agree. I am asking them to agree." The distinction that anchors his entire approach is deceptively simple: "Consensus does not require everyone to agree with the decision. It requires people to agree to support the decision."
For lab managers juggling diverse stakeholders with genuinely different perspectives, this distinction changes the game. Consensus is how a lab leader blends those perspectives into something workable. As Hanton put it, fundamentally it is about "aligning efforts for win-win outcomes."
Why consensus is worth the effort
Building consensus is harder than simply issuing a decision, so why invest in it? Because the decisions lab managers face are multifaceted, and the best elements of a solution can come from anyone in the room.
When executed well, consensus building creates practical operational alignment, moving a team from differing perspectives to genuine commitment. It generates buy-in because everyone has a voice, and it surfaces concerns early rather than after implementation has begun. Perhaps counterintuitively, it also reduces conflict. "We're going to reduce conflict by, well, by having conflict," Hanton said. "But we're going to have conflict in a healthy, respectful way where we're expecting people to put their ideas on the table, even if those ideas are unpopular or unique."
The core benefits of consensus building for lab teams include:
- Operational alignment: Moves a team from differing perspectives to a shared, committed course of action.
- Stronger buy-in: Gives every stakeholder a voice, so people support decisions they helped shape.
- Earlier problem-spotting: Surfaces objections and risks during the discussion rather than mid-implementation.
- Healthier conflict: Channels disagreement into respectful, idea-focused debate instead of avoidance.
- Better decisions: Incorporates the strongest input from across the lab's range of expertise.
- Improved morale and follow-through: Builds trust and drives progress because people feel genuinely heard.
How do you set up the decision before you start?
One of Hanton's most actionable recommendations is to tell people up front how the decision will be made. He outlined several decision-making models, and clarity about which one is in play prevents significant frustration:
- I decide: The leader has done the research and makes the call—useful for urgent safety or quality issues where the right answer is already known.
- You provide input, I decide: The leader seeks expertise and opinions but retains the decision.
- We decide: The collaborative space where consensus lives, alongside majority vote and unanimity.
- Someone else decides: For decisions owned by line management, where the team's job is to shape a persuasive case.
From there, Hanton advocates building a "decision charter"; a shared agreement on the questions that must be answered before crafting an outcome. Securing these before debate begins keeps the conversation from spiraling.
Focus on interests, not positions
The core discipline of consensus, Hanton argued, is separating what people want from why they want it. For instance, if a scientist demands a certain LCMS vendor (a position), you must uncover the underlying reason (the interest, such as specific throughput requirements).
"We really want to focus on the criteria, not on the positions," Hanton said. "So we have to back people away from what they think the final right answer is to why they came to it." When a team negotiates criteria first and evaluates solutions against them second, decisions arrive . Instead of arguing over which instrument to buy, the group agrees on which criteria matter most—then measures the options against that shared standard, steering the discussion toward a win-win outcome rather than a contest of preferences.
Lab Quality Management Certificate
The Lab Quality Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
The listening skills that make it work
None of this is possible without psychological safety. Citing Amy Edmondson's work, Hanton described it as the belief that one won't be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. "If we do not have psychological safety, then consensus building will not work," he said flatly.
On that foundation, active listening becomes the leader's most important tool. Hanton walked through a sequence: listen to understand, ask questions rather than rebut, clarify to narrow down the true concern, reflect back to name what the disagreement is and isn't, and finally validate. He is careful to note that validation is not agreement. "When I say that I understand why that concerns you, it does not mean that I agree that it's a concern. It just means that I feel like I finally understood exactly what you were talking about."
Turning resistance into conditions
To move a reluctant colleague toward commitment, Hanton borrows a technique from improv. Beyond the familiar "yes, and" and "yes, but," he introduces a third: "yes, if." The question becomes: what would need to be true for you to support this? "That's going to force people to boil down their disagreements or concerns about a decision or a proposal to the bare minimum. So it converts resistance into conditions,” he explained. These conditions can then be tested against the agreed criteria rather than argued about personally.
Interested in lab leadership?
This is also where flexibility is crucial. "If we're going to tell our staff that we are safety first, that safety is non-negotiable, then safety can't be negotiable," Hanton said. Quality and scientific integrity fall in the same category. Yet timing, scope, budget, ownership, and phased rollouts are all negotiable components a creative team can use to bring people on board; a three-month trial period, for instance, instead of an irreversible commitment.
Handling difficult personalities
Hanton was candid that the hardest consensus challenges are personality-driven. The dominant talker who needs the last word shuts down open debate; in team meetings, the leader's job is to ensure everyone has room to speak. The chronic critic who only ever wears the "black hat" can be redirected using Edward de Bono's Six Hats framework, which forces the whole group to consider facts, emotions, optimism, criticism, and creativity one mode at a time.
His own biggest challenge, he admitted, is passive-aggressive behavior—the barely perceptible nod that masks a lack of agreement. His rule is unambiguous: "Silence does not mean acceptance. We need to hear their willingness to commit, and that means hearing from every single person."
From agreement to commitment
The finish line is not agreement but commitment—and Hanton is precise about the difference. "Agreement occurs in the meeting. A commitment is the behaviors and actions that happen after the meeting." That commitment is measured through action items: who is doing what, by when, and how everyone will know it's done. Before anyone leaves the room, the commitment must be explicit—vocalized and, ideally, written down.
Ultimately, Hanton reframes the entire exercise. "Consensus is not about agreement. Consensus is about making the proposal better so that we can all commit to it." The goal is not universal enthusiasm. "I don't need everybody to say to their staff, this is the best idea that has ever occurred. But I need nobody to hate it. I need everybody to be willing to commit and take the action item."
For lab leaders, the discipline reduces to five rules:
- Define the decision: Clarify what is being decided and its scope with a decision charter.
- Understand where people stand: Identify each stakeholder's interests and motivations, not just their stated positions.
- Agree on criteria: Negotiate the standards for success before evaluating any specific solution.
- Ask the "yes, if" questions: Convert objections into clear, workable conditions that reduce resistance.
- Make commitment explicit: Secure vocalized, written commitment and action items before the meeting ends.
Master those, and the decision that once threatened to stall in the hallway becomes the one the whole team is ready to carry forward.
