Group Decision Quotes

The individual is foolish; the multitude, for the moment is foolish, when they act without deliberation; but the species is wise, and when time is given to it, as a species it always acts right.

If an important decision is to be made, they [the Persians] discuss the question when they are drunk, and the following day the master of the house where the discussion was held submits their decision for reconsideration when they are sober. If they still approve it, it is adopted; if not, it is abandoned. Conversely, any decision they make when they are sober, is reconsidered afterwards when they are drunk.

A swarm finds the solution people best agree upon. It optimizes collective support, whereas a poll tells us how we disagree.

The 'wisdom of the crowds' is the most ridiculous statement I've heard in my life. Crowds are dumb.

The collective judgement of the Congress, with all its faults, could be superior to that of one man who makes the final decision, in the executive.

Things must be done by parties, not by persons using parties as tools.

If you are trying to get people to work on a problem together, it's best if they don't know where you, as the supervisor/manager, stand on the question.

The more people there are, the more things they see, and in them there is a more perceptive and discerning reason than in one person: therefore, in this respect, it is better to be ruled by many

Five heads are definitely better than one when they're thinking in the same perspective. I think that you really need to have people that you trust. And for me, trust comes from that synchronizing, that same-mindedness.

… leadership is not a one man show.

There is no more great men; there is only great committees.

When men unite in large societies, they cannot each take an active part in what concerns the common good. They are obliged to delegate their individual powers and rights to act, in things relating to it, to several, or to one.

If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man

When you have too many people and you're trying to satisfy everybody's input, you usually end up with something so incredibly generic that it has no point of view.

You can get together, you can talk as much as you want, but if there's not a decision-making process - that's where democracy really matters.

Too many problem-solving sessions become battlegrounds where decisions are made based on power rather than intelligence.

The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.

Groups are only smart when there is a balance between the information that everyone in the group shares and the information that each of the members of the group holds privately. It's the combination of all those pieces of independent information, some of them right, some of the wrong, that keeps the group wise.

The lavish presentation appeals to me, and I've got to convince the others.

The more people are involved in a given task, the more potential agreements need to be negotiated to do anything, and the greater the transaction costs.

Consensus isn't just about agreement. It's about changing things around: You get a proposal, you work something out, people foresee problems, you do creative synthesis. At the end of it, you come up with something that everyone thinks is okay. Most people like it, and nobody hates it.

The crowd has a way of being right.

There is no name for all who participate in group decision-making or the organization which they form. I propose to call this organization the Technostructure.

Reaching consensus in a group is often confused with finding the right answer.