How to build consensus when dealing with detractors

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

Imagine this: You’ve just presented a new architectural approach to your team. You’re confident it’s the best way forward, but as the meeting wraps up, you notice the skeptical looks and folded arms.

Some team members are on board, but others are questioning every detail. How do you turn this around and get everyone moving in the same direction?

As a staff+ engineer, this scenario might sound familiar. That’s because your role extends beyond technical expertise; you’re a strategic leader, responsible for guiding your team through change and shaping the future of your organization.

But to make a real impact, building consensus and handling detractors is key. It’s not about winning every argument – it’s about aligning people toward a shared goal, even when opinions differ.

Forming working groups

Imagine trying to assemble a piece of furniture without all the parts or the manual. That’s what decision-making can feel like without the right people in the room. When building consensus around architectural decisions, one powerful strategy is to form an architecture working group. 

A working group brings together key stakeholders to collaborate on solving specific challenges, ensuring that diverse perspectives are represented. 

Working groups can take different forms. Sometimes, they naturally evolve within project teams when several people are already aligned on the same project goals or architectural work. However, in many cases – especially when tackling larger or cross-functional architectural decisions – you’ll need to intentionally recruit key participants to create a balanced and effective group.

A well-chosen working group does more than just hammer out decisions – it fosters a sense of ownership. When people feel they’ve had a hand in shaping the direction, they’re more likely to back the final verdict. Moreover, in complex architectural decisions, ideas often need refinement through multiple iterations.

A working group allows for quicker feedback cycles, as key stakeholders are continuously involved, providing input and addressing issues in real-time. This structure not only accelerates decision-making but also creates a shared commitment to the chosen direction.

Navigating different types of detractors

One of the biggest hurdles in building consensus is dealing with detractors – team members who oppose or question the proposed change. Inevitably, not everyone will agree with your approach. Whether it’s due to technical disagreements, competing priorities, or personal biases, dealing with detractors can be challenging. However, not all detractors are the same, and understanding their motivations can help you tailor your approach. 

Think of each type of detractor as the below: 

1. The uninformed: this individual hasn’t seen the roadmap yet. They don’t yet see the value of your decision because they lack context. A simple, clear explanation can work wonders here. But be prepared; they might shift to a different type of skeptic once they have more information. For example, after grasping the basics, they could fixate on potential risks, resembling a naysayer. Being aware of this potential shift means you’ll be ready to adapt your approach as they raise new questions or concerns with more insight.
2. The naysayer: this person loves to point out all the potholes along the way. They tend to focus on potential problems, often out of habit or a desire to challenge others to appear knowledgeable. The best approach here is to address their concerns directly, while also discerning whether their objections are genuinely constructive or just a form of cynicism intended to slow progress. Being open and transparent about your decision-making process helps prevent unwarranted pushback – when they see that issues have already been considered, it leaves less room for criticism.
3. The burned: these detractors have been hurt by past failed initiatives and fear similar outcomes. They fear this time might be no different. Acknowledge their past experiences and show how this time, you’re steering clear of those risks.
4. The pragmatist: they focus on practical outcomes and need clear evidence that your plan will deliver. Show them the data or case studies that prove your approach can go the distance. 
5. The irrational: this individual resists change without a consistent or clear reason, often shifting their objections whenever you address their concerns. This is the trickiest type – the person who resists change without a clear reason. Engaging in a logic battle with them is like playing chess with a pigeon. Don’t waste time debating their points. Instead, try to listen carefully for recurring themes or patterns in their objections. If you can identify their deeper concern, address it at that level, without getting bogged down in endless debates.

5 techniques for building consensus

Let’s talk about some strategies that help you turn initial resistance into agreement. Think of these as the tools in your leadership toolbox:

1. Gain expertise 

Knowledge is one of your greatest tools in building consensus. By deeply understanding both the problem and solution, you can address concerns confidently and convincingly. This technique is especially effective with the uninformed and the naysayer, as it allows you to address knowledge gaps and counter objections. Additionally, showing an understanding of past failures can reassure the burned. However, avoid coming across as arrogant or dismissive of others’ concerns. Approach the conversation humbly and be open to feedback.

2. Demonstration over discussion

Instead of lengthy debates, use demonstrations to prove your point. For instance, if there’s disagreement on whether to use REST or messaging, a proof-of-concept demonstrating messaging’s better performance in your environment will often settle the issue. This approach is effective against the uninformed and the naysayer – seeing results in action can dissolve skepticism. It can also expose the irrationality of the irrational, as opposing solid evidence can seem unreasonable.

3. Create trust

Building trust is fundamental to overcoming skepticism. Consistently being honest, reliable, and transparent can win over even the most resistant team members. Trust is especially critical when dealing with the burned​​. When they see that their concerns are being taken seriously and that you’re committed to a realistic approach, they’re more likely to feel secure and gradually open up to supporting the new direction. The naysayer and the irrational may continue to resist, but others are more likely to rally behind you if they trust your judgment.

4. Build a bridge

Sometimes a phased approach works best, especially when introducing major changes. Start by solving small, painful issues with the new system to win over skeptics gradually before implementing larger changes. This is ideal for the burned, who will prefer proof of success to reassure them. The pragmatist may also appreciate the step-by-step progress.

5. Have them arrive at the solution 

Allowing detractors to discover the flaws in their approach can be an effective strategy. For instance, if someone insists on using a framework you believe is unsuitable, ask them to demonstrate how it meets the project’s requirements. If they’re unable to, they’ll likely realize on their own that it’s not the best choice, avoiding the argument. On the other hand, if they succeed in meeting the requirements with their framework, it’s still a win – you might have overlooked something, and their solution could turn out to be better. This technique works well with the pragmatist and the irrational, as it forces them to confront the practicalities of their preferred solution. It’s a diplomatic way to gain their buy-in​.

Consensus is a spectrum

Remember that consensus doesn’t always mean unanimous agreement. Often, it’s about reducing opposition and getting as many people as possible on board.

If a particular choice faces strong resistance, it might be worth re-evaluating the options to ensure no team feels alienated. Aim for a broad agreement rather than complete harmony, focusing on moving the group forward.

Lead with empathy, transparency and an open mind

Consensus-building is not just about getting a decision made in the short term – it’s about establishing yourself as a trusted leader. Empathy plays a vital role, as it helps you understand the motivations behind a detractors resistance, whether it’s due to technical disagreements, competing priorities, or personal biases. By approaching detractors with empathy, transparency and an open mind, you can better tailor your approach to address their unique concerns, transforming resistance into collaboration. 

Final thoughts

Building consensus as a staff+ engineer is a delicate balancing act that requires both technical expertise, negotiation skills, and emotional intelligence. By understanding the different types of detractors, and using targeted strategies to address their concerns, you can foster broader agreement, ensure decisions are accepted, and maintain team cohesion.

And remember, it’s not about being in the driver’s seat for every decision – it’s about ensuring the team feels like they’re all part of the journey. When you do this well, you don’t just reach your destination; you build trust, foster collaboration, and set your team up for long-term success.

Get articles like this in your inbox

Choose your LeadDev newsletters to subscribe to.