What is the difference between an accommodation and a consensus?
Based on the provided sources, particularly the works of Peter Checkland (Soft Systems Methodology), C. West Churchman, and Fred Emery, the difference between accommodation and consensus lies in the depth of agreement regarding values (worldviews) versus actions.
In complex, “wicked,” or pluralist environments, systems thinkers generally view consensus as an ideal that is rarely achievable, whereas accommodation is the practical goal necessary to enable action.
1. Consensus: Agreement on Mental Models (The “Why”)
Consensus implies that all stakeholders share the same values, goals, and understanding of the situation.
• Shared Worldview: Consensus requires that participants agree not only on what to do but why they are doing it. It implies a shared Weltanschauung (worldview)[1].
• Unitary Contexts: Consensus is typically only possible in “unitary” contexts where participants share common interests and agree on both ends and means[1],[2].
• The Danger: In complex systems, seeking consensus can be dangerous. It may lead to “groupthink,” where critical differences are suppressed to maintain an illusion of agreement, or it may result in “artificial consensus” that ignores reality[3].
2. Accommodation: Agreement on Action (The “What”)
Accommodation is a pragmatic agreement to alter a situation in a specific way, despite continuing to hold different worldviews and values.
• Living With Differences: Accommodation is defined as a version of the situation that conflicting interests can “live with,” even if they do not agree on the underlying reasons for the action[4].
• Cultural Feasibility: In Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), the goal is not to find a “correct” solution but to find changes that are “systemically desirable” (logical) and “culturally feasible” (acceptable to the specific people involved)[5],[6].
• Action without Commonality: Accommodation allows a group to proceed on common ground without pretending that conflict has vanished. It involves finding specific actions that different stakeholders can support for different reasons[3].
3. Summary of Differences
| Feature | Consensus | Accommodation |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Agreement on Values & Beliefs | Agreement on Action & Policy |
| Requirement | Shared Worldview (Weltanschauung) | Conflicting Worldviews[7] |
| Context | Unitary (Shared interests) | Pluralist (Basic compatibility but differing values)[1] |
| Outcome | Unified mental model | A practical way forward everyone can tolerate[4] |
| Methodology | Hard Systems / Engineering | Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) / Critical Systems[8] |
Practical Example in Methodology
• Fred Emery (Open Systems Theory): Explicitly advises against seeking artificial consensus. Instead, he suggests creating a “Disagreed List” to rationalize conflict—acknowledging where the group does not agree so they can work on the areas where they can accommodate one another[3].
• Peter Checkland (SSM): Argues that because human situations are defined by conflicting Weltanschauungen (e.g., one person sees a jail as a “punishment system,” another as a “rehabilitation system”), consensus is impossible. Therefore, the investigator must seek an accommodation that allows action to be taken despite these permanent conceptual differences[9],[6].
References
[1] MC Jackson.md [2] Robert Flood.md [3] Fred Emery.md [4] C. West Churchman.md [5] Peter Checkland.md [6] Peter Checkland.md [7] MC Jackson.md [8] Robert Flood.md [9] MC Jackson.md