PLEASE HELP ASNWER THOROUGHLY.. AND PLEASE DO NOT COPY FROM GOOGLE OR EXISTING ANSWERS IN CHEGG

CASE INCIDENT 1 The Calamities of Consensus When it is time for groups to reach a decision, many If consensus is reached, does that mean the decision turn to consensus. Consensus, a situation of agree is the right one? Critics of consensus-based methods ar- ment, seems like a good idea. To achieve consensus, gue that any decisions ultimately reached are inferior to groups must cooperate and collaborate, which ulti decisions using other methods such as voting or having mately will produce higher levels of camaraderie and team members provide input to their leader, who then trust. In addition, if everyone agrees, the prevailing makes the final decision. Critics also argue that because wisdom says everyone will be more committed to the of pressures to conform, groupthink is much more likely, decision. and decisions reached through consensus are simply those However, the need for consensus can sometimes be everyone dislikes the least. detrimental to group functioning. Consider the fiscal cliff faced by the U.S. government toward the end of Questions 2012. The White House and Congress needed to reach a 9-28. Is consensus a good way for groups to make deci deal that would reduce the swelling budget deficit. How sions? Why or why not? ever, many Republicans and Democrats stuck to their 9-29. Can you think of a time when a group of which you party lines, refusing to compromise. Many viewed the end were a part relied on consensus? How do you think product that achieved consensus as a less-than-optimal so the decision turned out? lution. The public gave Congress an approval rating of 9-30. Martin Luther King Jr. once proclaimed, A only 13 percent, expressing frustration with the lack of genuine leader is not a seeker of consensus but compromise, but the group may not have been able to a modeler of consensus." What do you think he function well partly because of the need for consensus in meant by that statement? Do you agree with it? the face of partisanship. Why or why not