Editing Consensus decision-making (section)

===Criticism of blocking===
Critics of consensus blocking often observe that the option, while potentially effective for small groups of motivated or trained individuals with a sufficiently high degree of [[Affinity (sociology)|affinity]], has a number of possible shortcomings, notably
*''Preservation of the status quo'': In decision-making bodies that use formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would like it to change.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.geocities.com/collectivebook/introductiontoconsensus.html |title=Introduction to Consensus |access-date=17 January 2007 |author=The Common Wheel Collective |year=2002 |work=The Collective Book on Collective Process |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060630154451/http://geocities.com/collectivebook/introductiontoconsensus.html |archive-date=30 June 2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
*''Susceptibility to widespread disagreement'': Giving the right to block proposals to all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible minority or individual. When a popular proposal is blocked the group actually experiences widespread disagreement, the opposite of the consensus process's goal. Furthermore, "opposing such obstructive behavior [can be] construed as an attack on freedom of speech and in turn [harden] resolve on the part of the individual to defend his or her position."<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.connected.org/govern/consensus.html | title = Consensus building and verbal desperados | access-date = 17 January 2007 | author = Alan McCluskey | year = 1999 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070209032625/http://www.connected.org/govern/consensus.html | archive-date = 9 February 2007 | url-status = dead }}</ref> As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the least accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating.
*''Stagnation and group dysfunction'': When groups cannot make the decisions necessary to function (because they cannot resolve blocks), they may lose effectiveness in accomplishing their mission.
*''Susceptibility to splitting and excluding members'': When high levels of group member frustration result from blocked decisions or inordinately long meetings, members may leave the group, try to get to others to leave, or limit who has entry to the group.
*''Channeling decisions away from an inclusive group process'': When group members view the status quo as unjustly difficult to change through a whole group process, they may begin to delegate decision-making to smaller committees or to an executive committee. In some cases members begin to act unilaterally because they are frustrated with a stagnated group process.