#3: Dietz, Volansky, Erev, & Gal—The More (Opinions) the Merrier?
Continuing my series of top 5 pieces of research from Nothing to Take Away, and building on #4—the timing of incentives—we arrive at #3.
Have you ever found yourself sitting with a group, trying to agree on a course of action? Maybe you’re quietly infuriated, arguing passionately, or perphaps the whole meeting just turned into a giant brawl?
Yeah, me too.
An intriguing variable in group decision-making is the demonstrability of the solution. By this, I mean: how easily can you prove a decision is right or wrong? Some problems are clearly demonstrable—like solving a math problem or determining the quickest route home using Google Maps. Other challenges are far trickier—take designing the right sales incentive plan, for example. There’s rarely an immediate “correct” answer. Even after a year of data, demonstrating whether your decision was optimal is tough unless you’ve conducted meticulous A/B testing and accounted for countless other variables.
Dietz, Volansky, Erev, and Gal explored precisely this phenomenon. They examined how group size interacts with demonstrability—the ease with which members can verify a solution’s correctness. The study found that for highly demonstrable tasks, larger groups generally made better decisions. However, for tasks that were difficult to verify (low demonstrability), increasing group size actually harmed decision-making quality, causing confusion rather than clarity.
What does this mean in practice? When designing sales plans—or tackling any strategic decision without an easily demonstrable “correct” outcome—be cautious about adding too many voices into the mix. Much of the chaos that comes from group decision-making can be managed with effective governance, a topic I dive into extensively in chapter 22 of my book, Nothing Left to Take Away.
Stay tuned for #2—things are really heating up now…
Leave a Reply