It depends on whether or not you are trying to get them to do what you want. Leading by definition is getting people to do what they would not do themselves (usually what you want them to do). I have rarely seen any situation where people agree completely or don't have preconceptions or agendas. It is not a negative thing, it just is. You must be able to discern what their ideas and agendas are and, if possible, work out a solution which satisfies everyone as much as possible. You will never satisfy everyone 100%, and you will have to deal with the fallout of that. You could just go along with the majority, but your interests will likely not be satisfied. I have never seen a true consensual leadership style work. Someone has to coordinate, mediate and keep people informed. Someone must step up or nobody's interests will be satisfied and it will be every man for himself. Leadership does not need to be authoritarian, and planning and discussion should include all the possible information you can digest from all interested parties. you can even vote on the final decision. When it comes time to execute the decision, someone has to lead. Even the most democratic process must have a mediator to keep the discussion on topic and resolve disputes in a less than violent manner.

I have never met a person I didn't learn something from; even if it was how not to do things. There is too much knowledge out there to think one person can come up with all of the answers and be correct all of the time. Once the decision is made though, everyone must pony up or follow their own path.