Without question, there is a huge distinction between consensus decisions and intelligent decisions. Usually, the two are negatively correlated. When we studied how the best decisions were made as companies made their shifts from good to great, we were struck by the absence of consensus decision making. Instead, what you had were environments characterized by immense debate. I mean genuine debate: yelling, screaming, pounding tables, veins bulging out, throwing things across the room. People would question, “Tell me, where’s your data? Let’s put our eyeballs to eyeballs. Let’s discuss this. Where is your evidence? Tell me what this means? I draw a different conclusion.” These are not decisions that were taken in a dictatorial, “I’m just going to go make the decision” style. They’re very, very rooted in dialogue, debate, discussion, data, and brutal facts. Not one major decision — not a single major decision — as the companies went from good to great was taken as a point of consensus. Every one of those major decisions was made by an executive while there was still substantial disagreement in the air. The responsibility of an executive is to reach a point of understanding and then to make the decision that is right. This usually happens before there is agreement. If you wait for a point of agreement, I’m reminded of the story of Alfred Sloan sitting around with his executives, at one point, he says, “Gentlemen, I take it we are all in agreement on this decision.” Everybody nodded their heads in agreement — to which Mr. Sloan said, “Then I suggest that we postpone this decision until we generate some genuine disagreement so that we might know what the decision is all about.” –Jim Collins