Making Better Leadership Decisions
Tapping into the Wisdom of Crowds

Traditionally leaders have made decisions from the top of the hierarchy. In theory, there is more expertise at this level. However, James Surowieki’s new book The Wisdom of Crowds tells us this:

Groups made up of non-experts can solve problems better than any one expert.

Diversity of opinion breeds high quality solution-generation (think "Ask the Audience" in Who Wants to be a Millionaire"). As a culture we implicitly understand the value of consensus; in voting, in determining company share value, and in the supply-and-demand economy.

However, diversity can be a thorn in your side if you don’t know how to use it to your advantage.

Traditional meeting methods sacrifice diversity in favour of clearer decisions which are not always of the highest quality.

The wider group may not embrace decisions driven too strongly from the top without effective consultation. Tapping into the Wisdom of the Group only works when you use the right processes to leverage the group’s diversity as an advantage.

Groupthink

Psychologists use the term “Groupthink” to refer to situations when groups of decision-makers lead themselves down the garden path and end up at a decision which ends up with poor or even disastrous consequences. Think about the Challenger shuttle; people at the top gave the green light even though other parts of the organisation knew there were serious risks with continuing (see Jim Surowieki’s book for the case study).

Often, while a group-wide discussion can seem like a useful experience for those who get involved, it prevents everyone’s voice from being heard. Some people don’t speak up because the direction of the discussion seems to be heading away from what they want to say. Implicit peer-pressure as a conversation gains momentum prevents dissenting or diverse views, focusing things in too quickly.

Conversely, some processes allow the group as a whole to freely express its views.

Who wants to be a millionaire

You’ve probably seen “Who wants to be a millionaire” on TV. When the hapless contestant runs out of answers, they have few resources to rely on. One is a pre-designated “expert,” the other, a bunch of people with nothing better to do on a weekday afternoon than sit around watching a game-show. Surprisingly, on average, experts got answers right 60% of the time, whereas the audience had a 90% success rate.

The electronic-voting pad system is a primitive way of combining a diverse range of opinions to obtain consensus on outcomes that are pre-determined. And the maths behind it shows that even when a tiny number within a crowd know the actual answer, the process still works 90% of the time.

Expertise of the few vs wisdom of crowds

Meetings exist to solve a problem or generate a strategy or solution. If you could do it yourself, you would. You wouldn’t need a meeting. When you call people together, face to face, you’re implying that others need to be involved. And it’s when you’re trying to make the best quality decision that the wisdom of crowds becomes important.

Scott Page, in his new book, The Difference, explains that systems like the voting pads work when people can use their own mental strategies to come up with solutions, without being influenced by others. Because of the diversity in the way people think about a problem, statistics show that the best result will always come out on top even when very few members of a group know the “right answer.”

We use the same methodology in democratic voting, on the stockmarket, and in the economy as a whole – measures of currency reflect aggregations of many different and complex forces.

Problems can happen if you don’t create the right level of insight and aggregate effectively in the Solution stage of a meeting.

A case study in strategic decision-making

Whole-group discussions attempt to generate “consensus agreement” on a course of action. As group size grows, stronger voices begin to influence perceptions and peoples’ ability to look at things using their own filters and tools. A clear direction emerges in the group which may not take into account all factors. Those who are not engaged may think twice about taking the agreed actions after the meeting. Your strategies may not come to fruition.

The Solution

So the question is, how do we have a group tap into their diverse opinions, then aggregate them to end up with a simple solution to a complex problem? There are two overall answers:

The solution stage: Ensure that there is a clear and distinct “Solution” stage in the meeting where the goal is to generate an agreed solution which integrates all this knowledge. This should only ever happen after Awareness has been raised and all the issues have been discussed.
The solution process: Use a process which respects diversity of opinion and aggregates the best idea into one or a few tangible, realistic solutions.

The Great Wall

One example Solution process is The Great Wall. It’s one of many that tap into the diversity of the group without creating a structure where they constrain and stifle each other’s diverse views.

First, a question is posed which the Solution stage is going to answer. Let’s say we want to understand the best solution to the current situation. When we use this in Strategic Meetings, we will only do so after an in-depth Awareness stage, which may take days to front-load people with all the information they need. We might ask:

“What potential projects or initiatives could move the organisation towards achieving its Vision/Mission?”

The Setup:

Have people write down as many projects as they want on cards, one card per project.
Lay out all the cards on the table or the floor and do the Great Wall process.

The Rules:.

Nobody talks during the process. This creates a level playing field.
The Goal: sort the projects into 3 or maximum 4 groupings. People decide themselves where they think a project should be and move the card over to that area of the table.
Anyone can play: you can move a card if you think it needs to be moved.

The Process:

What ensues is a silent process where people organise the projects into three key areas of focus. This is done by moving the cards around the table so that they form some kind of natural grouping. You can have people go further and prioritise projects on a number of dimensions, using similar silent processes which makes sure everyone is ‘heard.’ With three or four key areas of focus and one high priority project within each, you are now in a position to begin considering resources and other factors. You may want to merge some projects into one, or separate others into multiple.

Getting solid results from a subsequent Traction stage is more likely with fewer areas of focus and an engaged group who have all contributed to the end-solution. (We have written elsewhere about different processes in the four stages of an effective meeting: Focus, Awareness, Solution and Traction)

The Disclaimer:

Now, this Solution process won’t work everywhere, or with every group. It’s specific to the situation. But it’s an example of a process which helps aggregate all the knowledge of the group and can be incredibly powerful in producing a plan which everyone has been a part of creating. Thereby creating engagement as well as high-quality decisions..

Action Steps

There are some definite steps you can now take towards making the Solution stage in your meetings more effective:

Stop premature elucidation: when people try to solve the problem and get it over and done with in the awareness stage, ask yourself "Is that going to get the kind of engagement we need?"
Consider your process: how well are you embracing versus quashing diversity of opinion?

There are many processes you can use in the Solution stage, and the Great Wall is one of many examples.

The key to successfully tapping into the group is in using methods which translate contribution by everyone into an outcome, without constraining them too much by what others think. While explicitly hearing from many perspectives is important, it should have its place and you should realise that it's not always useful. A good process will then help the group come to some synthesis through everyone’s involvement.

Making Better Leadership Decisions Tapping into the Wisdom of Crowds