In technical laboratories where innovation thrives, decision-making can often become contentious. Diverse opinions and personalities can make consensus challenging, yet it remains essential for progress. Understanding the elements of consensus can help laboratory managers build consensus in the lab. Here are key insights into what consensus is and how to reach consensus.
What does consensus mean?
Scott Hanton, a longtime lab leader and the editorial director of Lab Manager, defines consensus succinctly: “The essence of consensus is that I can live with it and I can support it when I leave the room.”
Advanced Lab Management Certificate
The Advanced Lab Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
Crucially, consensus does not require complete agreement or satisfaction from everyone involved. It is fundamentally about alignment rather than unanimity. As Hanton explains, "Consensus is a lower bar than unanimity. If we held the bar at unanimity, we might never make some of these decisions."
Striving for unanimity in laboratories is often unrealistic and, consequently, counterproductive. Instead, consensus enables teams to take meaningful steps forward even when disagreement persists. Consensus is vital for a lab to maintain its productivity, but consensus can only be achieved with its core elements of defined expectations, psychological safety, candor, debate, boundaries, and full participation.
A clearly articulated final outcome
Leaders must explicitly state the expectation of consensus at the outset. "It's really important for the leader to state the desired outcome," Hanton says.
Leaders must reinforce agreed-upon behavior following consensus, whatever those steps may be. Hanton warns against passive-aggressive behavior, noting, "We must insist on the people who participate to be accountable to their agreement to consensus."
Emotional and psychological safety
One foundational element of consensus is emotional and psychological safety, which creates an environment where team members feel secure in expressing their views. According to Hanton, "It is nearly impossible to come to truly beneficial consensus opinions in the absence of emotional and psychological safety."
Psychological safety ensures that all voices—not just the loudest or most assertive—contribute meaningfully. As Hanton notes, building this safe environment is "the hallmark of teams and groups that are more successful."
Candor
Candor is another crucial element. Distinct from brutal honesty, Hanton emphasizes that candor is about speaking truthfully and respectfully, yet with sufficient assertiveness. This type of communication fosters productive discussions rather than defensive reactions. Candor is about solving problems collaboratively.
Hanton notes that some people are brutally honest when they should be practicing candor. The difference lies in intent—where candor is collaborative and respectful, brutal honesty is self-serving and hurtful. "Brutal honesty is, ‘I'm going to use my truth as a club and I'm going to clear a path to my objective with it.’" Effective lab leadership encourages candor, enabling clear communication and progress toward consensus, and discourages brutal honesty as it runs counter to fostering psychological safety.
Healthy debate
A primary function of candor is to stir healthy debate, which involves critically evaluating ideas and data without personal attacks. But many people struggle to differentiate personal criticism from professional critique. "There's a lot of people who don't know how to do healthy debate,” Hanton says.
Hanton and his senior scientists would run training exercises with staff so they could learn how to debate constructively. Teaching healthy debate is “really about distinguishing personal attacks from data-driven questions,” he says, “and when people can’t distinguish those things, it’s really hard to do team-based science.”
Boundaries
Clearly defining non-negotiable boundaries—both interpersonal and scientific—is crucial for effective consensus building. For Hanton, interpersonal non-negotiables include respect, honesty, integrity, and active listening.
Additionally, teams must agree on the scope of the problem they’re solving. Establishing clear boundaries around the challenge and what characterizes a suitable solution helps focus discussions. “I may not know where that solution is, but I want to ring-fence the solution,” Hanton says. “So I'm working inside some boundaries. Those boundaries may be previous experiments. They may be literature data. They may be things we came along with in our experience or our education. We want to find that perimeter and then start interpolating inside it [to find the solution].”
Full participation
Full participation is necessary for true consensus. Hanton stresses the importance of involving everyone, not just assertive individuals or leaders. "Truly getting everybody's opinion on the table is really the hard part," he remarks.
To avoid hierarchical bias and ensure honest input from all team members, Hanton recommends starting discussions with lower-ranking individuals. "I would almost always start with the person with the lowest hierarchy and ask them to speak first," he explains. “If the high-hierarchy people go first, then low-hierarchy people are more inclined to simply agree with them.”
Working up the chain of command prevents quieter or lower-ranking team members from self-censoring, and the more authentic perspectives the group has, the more valuable the data will be to make decisions with.
Consensus is essential yet challenging to achieve, particularly in innovative laboratory settings. By fostering emotional safety, encouraging candor, promoting healthy debate, clearly establishing non-negotiables, ensuring full participation, articulating outcomes explicitly, and employing structured frameworks like De Bono’s Six Hats, lab leaders can build strong consensus. These elements ensure effective decision-making, promote alignment, and ultimately drive innovation forward.
