Critical imagination: Expanding consensual decision-making processes in public administration

Abstract

The belief that consensus-based outcomes of decision-making spaces are the best way to achieve the “right” decision has made consensus a guiding myth in public administration. This is not always positive, as consensus processes conjure images of power relations and constrained discussion. This article analyzes the myth of consensus by combining two existing frameworks: Box’s critical social change and Abel’s decision heuristics. Together, these frameworks highlight a mechanism that focuses on delib- eration, antagonism, and critical imagination instead of on elite decision-making. In combination they should lead to consensual outcomes, as the root of public administration is decision-making. If not, decision heuristics guide the process to start again.