Trust Behind the Strategy: Co-Creation Is Not Consensus

Meaningful participation does not require unanimous agreement

Co-creation can be described as bringing people together, listening to different perspectives, and building something collectively. Now all of that is true, but somewhere along the way, co-creation can get confused with consensus in that the idea that every stakeholder must agree with the final decision before the process can move forward.

Yeah no… That is neither realistic nor necessary.

Destinations are made up of people and organizations often with competently different priorities. I’ve spoken about this prior in my research in that these businesses may sometimes have their own best interests in mind and not that of the destination. A hotelier may be focused on occupancy. A resident may be concerned about congestion or quality of life. A local attraction may want greater visibility. Elected officials may be looking for measurable economic impact. Community organizations may be asking whether tourism benefits are reaching the people and neighborhoods they represent.

These interests can overlap, but they will not always align perfectly. If co-creation requires everyone to agree, meaningful action becomes nearly impossible.

Co-creation is not about eliminating disagreement. It is about creating a credible process for working through it.

Participation is not the same as control

Inviting stakeholders into a planning process does not mean giving each and every decision to the group. It means giving people a genuine opportunity to contribute knowledge, identify concerns, challenge assumptions, and shape the direction of the work.

This distinction matters…alot.

Participants should understand what is open for discussion, what constraints already exist, who will make the final decision, and how their input will be used. Without that clarity, engagement can create expectations that the organization never intended—or was never able—to meet.

For example, a destination may invite partners and residents to help shape a new visitor initiative. Their input may influence the audiences being considered, the stories being told, the experiences being elevated, or the measures used to define success. However, budget limits, legal requirements, research findings, or organizational responsibilities may still determine the final course of action.

That does not make the process less collaborative. It makes the boundaries of collaboration honest.

The danger of performative agreement

For organizations, consensus should never be the goal, as it can reward the appearance of agreement instead of the value of honest participation.

Difficult questions get softened. Minority perspectives are quietly set aside. Participants are less likely to challenge an idea because they do not want to be seen as the uncooperative party in the room. A polished final plan may emerge, but the underlying concerns remain unresolved.

Healthy co-creation should make room for constructive tension. Disagreement can reveal risks, surface missing information, and expose assumptions that would otherwise go unchallenged. The objective is not to make every difference disappear. It is to ensure those differences are heard, examined, and considered before a decision is made.

What meaningful co-creation requires

Meaningful co-creation starts with clarity. Before bringing people into the room, destination leaders should be able to answer several questions:

• What decision or challenge are we asking people to help shape?

• Which parts of the process are genuinely open to influence?

• Whose knowledge or lived experience is needed?

• What constraints must be acknowledged from the beginning?

• Who is responsible for making the final decision?

• How will we explain what we heard and what happens next?

These questions prevent co-creation from becoming a vague invitation to “share your thoughts.” They give participation a purpose.

The process also requires representation beyond the usual voices. If the same highly engaged partners are repeatedly invited into every conversation, the organization may reinforce existing perspectives rather than expand its understanding. Co-creation becomes more valuable when it includes people who experience the destination differently—including smaller businesses, frontline employees, residents, cultural organizations, and groups that may not already have strong access to destination leadership.

Not every voice will carry the same expertise on every issue, but every participant should know why they were invited and how their perspective contributes to the larger picture.

Closing the loop is where trust is tested

The most important moment in a co-creation process may come after the listening session, workshop, or advisory meeting has ended.

Organizations frequently ask for input and then go quiet. Participants do not know what was accepted, what was rejected, what changed, or whether anyone considered their contribution at all. Even a well-designed engagement effort can feel extractive when there is no visible follow-through.

Closing the loop does not require pretending that every suggestion was adopted. In fact, trust is often strengthened by explaining why certain ideas could not move forward.

A credible response can be simple:

• Here is what we heard.

• Here is what influenced the strategy.

• Here is what we could not incorporate and why.

• Here is what will happen next.

People can accept a decision they did not personally choose when they believe the process was fair, transparent, and consequential. They are less likely to trust a decision—even one they might otherwise support—when their participation feels symbolic.

Leadership still requires a decision

Co-creation does not remove the responsibility of leadership. It improves the information, perspective, and relationships available to those who must lead.

Destination leaders still have to evaluate competing priorities, make tradeoffs, and choose a direction. In some cases, the final decision will disappoint people who participated in the process. The obligation is not to avoid that outcome at all costs. The obligation is to make the decision with greater awareness and communicate it with integrity.

The real promise of co-creation is not universal agreement. It is better strategy built through meaningful participation—and stronger trust because people can see how the strategy took shape.

Consensus asks, “Does everyone agree?”

Co-creation asks, “Did the right people meaningfully shape the work?”

That is a more realistic standard—and a more valuable one.

In the next installment of Trust Behind the Strategy, we will examine the DMO as an ecosystem orchestrator and what it means to lead across organizations, interests, and relationships without controlling them.