It seems like a simple task to work together. More heads...wider skill sets...more "man or woman" hours available for the task...
What could possibly go wrong?
Not a rhetorical question...answer: a lot.
I've seen many a group fail miserably and spectacularly. A part of me believes they fail more than succeed. Having reviewing Sunstein...and the many reasons in which a group can fail...I can see why!
Sunstein begins by recognizing that there are four basic means for eliciting and aggregating information. Each has the potential for failure. For instance, in deliberation, pre-existing biases can be reinforced (p. 48). The very start point of these discussions can be flawed (aka "anchored" p. 34). Throw in a bit of diversity suppression ala our previous discussions, and it's easy to see what can trigger the failures.
However...I'd like to talk about what can go "right." When does a group become functional? Sunstein offers several lessons...
First, from page 57, groups are limited. Deliberation does not always result in closer proximity to "truth." And they do not always do better than statistical groups. In short, teams "become" functional and are not born that way.
Next, informational infliuence and social pressure can limit the teams perspective. Remaining open to dissenting and diverse views is therefore critically important. Teh best group decisions, for instance, result in part from arguments spread between individuals (Sunstein p. 63).
On a closing note, there remains the vexing issue of the jury theory...if each individual in the group is wrong on average more often than right, the likelihood of the group making the correct decision approaches 0% as the group size increases.
So much for strength in numbers!
No comments:
Post a Comment