Wiser

1. Groups often amplify individual errors and biases.

individual errors are not merely replicated but actually amplified in many group decisions—a process of “some garbage in, much garbage out.”

Individual biases persist. Behavioral science shows individuals make predictable mistakes like unrealistic optimism, planning fallacy, and overconfidence. Counterintuitively, groups often don't correct these errors; they make them worse. For example, groups are more prone to escalating commitment to failing projects and are more vulnerable to framing effects than individuals.

Why errors amplify. Informational and social pressures contribute to this. If most members share a bias, it acts as social proof, making others doubt their own correct judgment. People may also conform to avoid seeming disagreeable, even if they suspect the majority is wrong.

Worse than individuals. Studies show groups can be worse than their average or median member. While some biases like egocentric bias might lessen with diverse views, many others, especially those rooted in flawed heuristics or overconfidence, are exacerbated by group interaction, leading to confident but incorrect collective decisions.

2. Informational and social pressures silence valuable dissent.

From the boss’s point of view, the answer should be yes, because the boss might learn something. But some bosses don’t see things that way, and many employees know that it might well be better just to shut up.

Information gets lost. People often fail to disclose what they know because they infer from others' statements or actions that their own information must be wrong (informational signals). This is especially true when leaders or high-status members speak first, creating a "halo" effect where their views are given undue weight.

Fear of disapproval. Beyond informational reasons, social pressures lead people to silence themselves to avoid penalties like disapproval, being seen as foolish, or not being a "team player." This is particularly strong when challenging a clear majority or a powerful leader.

The cost of silence. This self-silencing means groups lose critical information, leading to poor decisions. The Bay of Pigs invasion failure is a classic example where advisers with doubts remained silent due to perceived social and informational pressures, resulting in a disastrous outcome.

3. Cascades lead groups to follow early, potentially wrong, signals.

herding is the fundamental behavior of human groups.

Following the crowd. Cascades occur when people follow the statements or actions of those who spoke or acted first, often ignoring their own private information. This can happen due to informational signals (believing others are right) or reputational pressures (fearing disapproval for dissenting).

Early signals matter. Even small, early signals can have a massive impact on the final group outcome. Studies show that initial positive votes or early expressions of opinion can significantly sway subsequent judgments and even determine the ultimate "popularity" of ideas or products, regardless of their intrinsic merit.

Ignoring private knowledge. In a cascade, individuals rationally (or irrationally) decide that the public information from others outweighs their own private knowledge. This prevents the group from accessing the full pool of information held by its members, making it vulnerable to error, especially if the initial signals were misleading.

4. Group polarization drives members toward extremes.

members of a deliberating group end up adopting a more extreme version of the position toward which they tended before deliberation began.

Moving to the poles. When like-minded people deliberate, their initial tendencies become more extreme. Groups starting with a risky inclination become riskier; those starting cautiously become more cautious. This happens for both factual judgments and value-based issues.

Three drivers of polarization.

• Informational influence: Arguments within the group are skewed towards the initial predisposition, exposing members to more reasons supporting that view.
• Social comparison: People adjust their positions slightly towards the perceived group norm to fit in or present themselves favorably.
• Confidence and corroboration: Agreement from others increases individual confidence, and increased confidence often leads to more extreme beliefs.

Dividing groups. Polarization increases consensus within like-minded groups but widens the gap between different groups. Studies with liberal and conservative citizens showed deliberation made each group more extreme and increased the divide between them, illustrating how group discussion can exacerbate societal divisions.

5. Shared information dominates, hiding crucial unique knowledge.

information held by all group members has more influence on group judgments than information held by only a few members.

The common-knowledge effect. Groups tend to focus discussion on information that all or most members already know, neglecting information held by only one or a few individuals. This happens even when the unshared information is critical for making the best decision.

Hidden profiles. As a result, groups often fail to uncover "hidden profiles"—accurate understandings or optimal solutions that could be reached if all members' information were pooled and considered. Studies show groups frequently choose suboptimal candidates or strategies because unique, disconfirming information is never adequately discussed.

Why unique knowledge is ignored. Shared information is statistically more likely to be mentioned. Furthermore, members, especially those with lower status or less confidence, are reluctant to emphasize unique information that might contradict the apparent consensus or require others to change their views, fearing disapproval or questioning of their credibility.

6. Anxious, inquisitive leaders are essential for wiser groups.

Anxious people like DeParle and Zients are indispensable in business and government, because they cut through, and overcome, the risk of groupthink.

Beyond happy talk. Complacent leaders who prefer upbeat projections and avoid bad news foster environments where self-silencing thrives. Anxious leaders, focused on potential problems and worst-case scenarios, actively seek out dissenting views and critical information.

Creating a safe space. Leaders can counteract social pressures by explicitly signaling that they value diverse perspectives and critical thinking, not just agreement. By being inquisitive and even self-silencing (speaking last), they create space for others, especially lower-status members, to share unique information without fear.

Priming critical thinking. Leaders can "prime" the group for critical thinking rather than just "getting along." Encouraging norms that reward disclosing information, even if it challenges the majority, fundamentally changes incentives and supports better outcomes by ensuring valuable knowledge is shared.

7. Assigning roles unlocks diverse information and perspectives.

If a group wants to obtain the information that its members hold, all group members should be told, before deliberation begins, that different members have different, and relevant, information to contribute.

Leveraging expertise. Groups composed of individuals with distinct roles or areas of expertise are more likely to elicit and use unshared information. When members know that others have specific, relevant knowledge, they are more likely to listen and the experts feel empowered to speak up.

Reducing hidden profiles. Studies show that publicly identifying the specific expertise of group members significantly reduces the common-knowledge effect and the problem of hidden profiles. This simple act ensures that unique information is more likely to be shared and considered by the group.

Diverse "equities". In government, the concept of different agencies having distinct "equities" (perspectives, expertise, concerns) ensures that diverse viewpoints are brought to the table. Wise leaders in any sector can apply this principle by ensuring relevant stakeholders with different knowledge bases are included and encouraged to contribute their unique insights.

8. Tournaments and prediction markets harness collective intelligence effectively.

Prediction markets, a recent innovation, have proved remarkably successful at forecasting events.

Beyond deliberation. For certain tasks, especially forecasting, methods that aggregate independent judgments often outperform deliberating groups. Tournaments and prediction markets are powerful tools that leverage the dispersed knowledge of many individuals.

Tournaments spark innovation. By offering prizes for the best solutions to clearly defined problems, tournaments incentivize large numbers of diverse competitors to invest effort and explore novel approaches independently. This structure avoids cascades and polarization, leading to creative breakthroughs like those seen in the Netflix Prize or government challenges.

Prediction markets aggregate information. Markets where people bet on outcomes (using real or virtual money) are remarkably accurate forecasters. They work because they incentivize individuals to use their private information, and the market price aggregates this dispersed knowledge. Unlike deliberation, they reduce social pressures and encourage ferreting out accurate information.

9. Separate identifying solutions from critically selecting them.

it is often best to separate those two stages, identification and selection, of the larger process.

Two distinct stages. Effective problem-solving involves two different processes: identifying a wide range of potential solutions (divergent thinking) and critically evaluating and selecting the best one (convergent thinking). Mixing these stages often hinders both.

Identification needs openness. The identification stage thrives on variety, independence, and uncritical brainstorming. The goal is to generate as many diverse ideas as possible, even seemingly impractical ones. Conditions that promote critical evaluation in this stage stifle creativity.

Selection needs rigor. The selection stage requires critical, analytical thinking based on predefined criteria. This is where solutions are rigorously evaluated, tested, and compared. The qualities needed here (skepticism, focus) are the opposite of those needed for identification. Separating these stages, perhaps with different group compositions or processes, optimizes both.

10. Data, evidence, and systematic analysis are vital safeguards.

Nothing seems to inject reality into a discussion and banish wishful thinking and biased speculations as well as empirical evidence, especially in the form of data and numbers.

Reality check. Many group failures stem from losing touch with reality due to biases, cascades, or focusing on shared opinions over facts. Relying on data and evidence provides an objective anchor that can counteract these problems.

Cost-benefit analysis. In government, cost-benefit analysis serves as a crucial safeguard against behavioral biases and group errors. By requiring quantification of impacts and comparison of alternatives, it imposes discipline and helps ensure decisions are based on maximizing net benefits, not just intuition or popular opinion.

Moneyball approach. Applying systematic analysis, like the "Moneyball" approach in baseball, to evaluate options or predict outcomes often outperforms judgments based on intuition, anecdotes, or even expert opinion. Randomized controlled trials and big data analysis are increasingly powerful tools for injecting empirical reality into decision-making processes in business and government.

11. Social skills and team dynamics significantly impact group performance.

measures of preferences for social working conditions have provided fruitful clues for a successful team.

Beyond individual IQ. While average intelligence matters, research suggests a "collective IQ" or Factor C, which includes social perception (reading emotions), evenness of participation, and potentially the number of women, is a stronger predictor of team performance on diverse tasks.

Teamwork matters. Individuals who prefer working in teams and possess social skills like the ability to understand others' emotional states contribute more effectively to group success, especially when tasks require coordination and real-time interaction.

One ball. Just having talented individuals isn't enough; they must be able to mesh and make each other better. Wise groups consider not just individual abilities but also how well members can cooperate, coordinate, and ensure everyone's contributions are utilized, recognizing that effective teamwork is crucial for achieving collective goals.

Last updated: June 23, 2025