When it is time for groups to reach a decision, many turn to consensus. Consensus, a situation of agreement, seems like a good idea. To achieve consensus, groups must co operate and collaborate, which ultimately will produce higher levels of camaraderie and trust. In addition, if ev eryone agrees, then the prevailing wisdom is that everyone will be more committed to the decision. However, there are times when the need for consensus can be detrimental to group functioning. Consider the re- cent "fiscal cliff" faced by the U.S. government toward the end of 2012. The White House and Congress needed to reach a deal that would reduce the swelling budget defi- cit. However, many Republicans and Democrats stuck to their party lines, refusing to compromise. Many vicwed the end product that achieved consensus as a less than opti- mal solution. The public gave Congress an approval rat- ing of only 13 percent, expressing frustration with the lack of compromise, but the group may not have becn able to function well partly because of the need for consensus. If consensus is reached, does that mean the decision is the right one? Consider the Supreme Court's recent ruling to uphold "Obamacare." In the days leading up to the decision, the general consensus was that the law requiring U.S. citizens. stitutional. Ultimately, that consensus proved to be wrong. Critics of consensus-based methods argue that any decisions that are ultimately reached are inferior to decisio using other methods such as voting or having a team members provide input to their leader, who then makes the s nal decision. Critics also argue that because of pressures to conform, groupthink is much more likely, and decisions reached through consensus are simply those that are disliked the Jeast by everyone.

Questions: 1. Is consensus a good way for groups to make decisions? Why or why not?