The Consensus Project

For managers, understanding the levels of within-group consensus in their teams is crucial for making impactful decisions. Teams too often rely on aggregated data or mean scores to gauge alignment, assuming that a high average rating or a majority vote reflects true consensus. This assumption can be misleading and even risky, as we discuss in Pairing mean scores with consensus metrics: Extending managers’ toolkit for decision-making . A high average score on the importance of a strategic priority may mask substantial underlying disagreements among team members.

For example, as shown in Within‐group consensus in nonprofit leadership teams: Two approaches for analyzing and visualizing within‐group consensus , a nonprofit leadership team might appear united on a new funding strategy because the average rating is positive, yet just over half strongly support it while the others harbor substantial reservations. Without recognizing this divergence, decisions may lack buy-in, face implementation challenges, or spark conflict. To avoid these pitfalls, managers should systematically assess the level of within-group consensus alongside average scores. Tools such as consensus mapping (for ranked priorities across organizational goals) or consensus plotting (for rated importance of organizational goals) visualize how aligned—or misaligned—team members truly are. Consensus mapping reveals how each leader prioritizes organizational goals, highlighting subgroups, outliers, and areas of strong or weak consensus. Consensus plotting shows both the average importance of an organizational goal and the degree of consensus, clarifying whether apparent goal importance is widely shared or masked by deep divisions.

Fostering consensus within teams is not merely about avoiding conflict; it is a strategic asset that yields tangible organizational benefits. When managers agree on strategic priorities, less time is spent debating fundamentals and more time on execution. This alignment is especially valuable in organizations with diverse stakeholders—common in the nonprofit sector, funders, beneficiaries, employees, volunteers, members, and partner organizations bring distinct perspectives and agendas. For this reason, nonprofit organizations have been particularly suitable for our empirical analyses.

Consensus mapping and plotting as a strategic governance tool

To harness consensus as a strategic asset, leadership teams should use consensus mapping and/or plotting not only to diagnose agreement but also to track the effects of interventions aimed at building consensus. For instance, if a team identifies low consensus on how to evaluate program impact, it could hold a workshop to discuss consensus metrics and visualizations. Afterward, the team can reassess consensus using the same visual tools to measure progress. This approach turns consensus-building from an abstract aspiration into a measurable outcome, allowing teams to see what works and where more effort is needed.

Organizations can proactively embed these tools into regular governance processes. For instance, teams might begin meetings with a “consensus check-in” to review visualizations of their alignment on key issues. This practice keeps consensus top of mind and normalizes the idea that alignment is dynamic and requires ongoing attention. Over time, teams that consistently monitor consensus tend to make decisions more efficiently, craft more coherent strategies, and cultivate more collaborative organizational cultures. In this way, consensus becomes more than just a metric or a picture—it becomes a cornerstone of effective organizational governance.

Importantly, low levels of consensus should not always be treated as a red flag. While extremely low consensus can paralyze decision-making, moderate divergence can be a catalyst for critical thinking and innovation. Differences in views on funding strategies, program priorities, or governance practices reveal blind spots, or highlight opportunities that a more homogeneous team might overlook. For example, if a consensus map or plot shows that half the team prioritizes “community engagement,” while the other half prioritizes “operational efficiency,” the visualized divergence can prompt productive conversation: Why do these differences exist? Are they rooted in distinct interpretations of the organization’s mission or in varied stakeholder experiences? By probing these questions, teams can craft innovative solutions that blend priorities—such as streamlining operations to free resources for community initiatives.

Consensus mapping and plotting beyond teams and organizations

Teams and organizations do not operate in isolation. Collaborations across teams or even across organizations is often essential to achieve shared goals. For nonprofit organizations, cross-organizational collaboration is often the only way to maximize social impact. Yet while within-team consensus has received relatively more attention, between-team consensus is often overlooked despite its importance.

Between-team consensus refers to the extent to which different groups, such as departments, partner organizations, or stakeholder coalitions, share similar opinions, priorities, and approaches. In public governance networks, where multiple teams and organizations often work toward complementary but distinct goals, misalignment can create inefficiencies, conflict, or missed opportunities for synergy. For example, a nonprofit pursuing both environmental advocacy and community education may find that its advocacy team prioritizes policy influence, whereas its education team emphasizes grassroots engagement. Without deliberate efforts to align these perspectives, the organization risks fragmented strategies, duplicated efforts, or even internal competition for resources.

In our research note — Beyond within-group consensus: Theoretical and methodological extensions for analyzing and visualizing between-group consensus across nonprofit leadership teams — we outline consensus mapping and plotting techniques for visualizing between-groups consensus. These methods allow managers to see at a glance which teams or organizations are closely aligned, and which are outliers. In doing so, consensus mapping and plotting help build bridges across team and organizational boundaries and strengthen collaborative communication.

Find the open-access articles here:

• Meyfroodt, K. & Willems, J. 2025. Pairing mean scores with consensus metrics: Extending managers’ toolkit for decision-making. European Management Review. DOI: 10.1111/emre.70020

• Meyfroodt, K., Willems, J. & Ozkes, A.I. 2025. Within‐group consensus in nonprofit leadership teams: Two approaches for analyzing and visualizing within‐group consensus. Nonprofit Management & Leadership. 36(2):271-287. DOI: 10.1002/nml.70004

• Meyfroodt, K. Ozkes, A.I., & Willems, J. 2025. Beyond within-group consensus: Theoretical and methodological extensions for analyzing and visualizing between-group consensus across nonprofit leadership teams. Nonprofit Management & Leadership. 36(2):289-298 DOI: 10.1002/nml.70001