Consensus does not mean “unanimity” – even though it is a rule that has been adopted as part of a decision-making process. The amount of agreement required to make a decision is called the “decision rule.”   In simple terms, there is a fictitious agreement when the agreement between a subject and his verb (or, in some cases, a pronoun and its predecessor) is determined by meaning and not by form. At this stage, it should be noted that the vast majority of the authorities` agreement is at odds with previous views on the definition. Consensus decision-making or consensual policy (often abbreviated by consensus) refers to group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide proposals for acceptance by all. The emphasis on preventing negative opinions distinguishes consensus from unanimity, requiring all participants to positively support a decision. Consensus comes from Latin, which means “agreement, agreement,” which in turn has just agreed, which means “feeling together.”  The process and outcome of the consensual decision are both called consensus (for example). B “by consensus” or “consensus”). The confusion between unanimity and consensus therefore usually leads to the failure of consensus decisions, and the group then returns either to the majority rule, or by super majority, or by dissolving. Since the consensus decision focuses on the debate and seeks input from all parties involved, it can be a time-taking process.
This is a potential liability in situations where decisions must be made quickly or where it is not possible to obtain the advice of all delegates within a reasonable time. In addition, the time required to participate in the consensus decision-making process can sometimes be a barrier to the participation of people who are unable or unable to make the commitment.  However, once a decision has been made, it can be implemented more quickly than a decision made. American businessmen complained that they had to discuss the idea with everyone, even the janitor, during negotiations with a Japanese company, but as soon as a decision was made, the Americans discovered that the Japanese could act much faster because everyone was on board, while the Americans were in the grip of internal opposition.  A tradition of supporting a coarse consensus is the tradition of buzzing, not hand-raising (denotable); This allows a group to quickly identify the prevalence of differences of opinion, without facilitating access to the majority rule.  On the other hand, Method 3 is better suited to a private family business, in which all decisions must first obtain the authorization of those responsible or, at the very least, obtain the majority approval of the committee. A fictitious chord is something we don`t often consider, because it`s almost instinctive, part of our regular speech habits. And it is not a rule defined per se, but a matter of preference, and it is more common in British English than in American English. If you prefer to say “a lot of spectators were approaching,” you`re not wrong.
Some proponents of consensus would argue that a majority decision reduces each decision-maker`s commitment to a decision. Members of a minority position may feel less compelled to vote by majority, and even majority voters who have taken their positions along parties or blocks may have a reduced sense of responsibility in the final decision. In the view of many supporters of consensus, the outcome of this reduced commitment is potentially less willing to defend the decision or act.