What do researchers and pundits argue (in the HBR article) about the wisdom of crowds? What are the two specific circumstances, based on the article?
Experts and pundits have argued that the wisdom of crowds is exceedingly unstable, contrary to the belief that when groups of people make predictions on their own their errors are not connected and it leads to more accurate forecasts. There are two specific situations where crowds are seemingly fragile: when people are affected by the ideas of others and when opinions are skewed by cognitive biases (Becker & Edwards, 2019).
What does new research zero in on and conclude? What is the caveat?
New research zeros in on the assumptions of researchers and conclude that there is more to it and the wisdom of crowds is more resilient than previously assumed. It can even endure the groupthink of like-minded individuals. The caveat is that every person in the group must be given an equal voice in order for the wisdom of the crowds to keep its accuracy in making forecasts (Becker & Edwards, 2019).
What are your thoughts as a leader from reading the article? OR, Can you connect this to a workplace situation and provide analysis?
As a leader, it is my job to understand the benefits that come from crowdsourcing as well as the negatives. I think it is also important to look at different techniques that groups can adapt to make the outcome a more beneficial one. Most of the groups we use in the decision-making process are Interacting groups (Robbins and Judge, 2017). The problem with interacting groups is they push for individuals to conform to their own point of view rather than embracing individual opinions. According to Robbins and Judge (2017), brainstorming and the nominal group approach can help alleviate some of the difficulties associated with the standard interactive group and it is important for leaders to consider these factors. Furthermore, research has indicated that the nominal group technique produces better outcomes than the brainstorming technique in general. Through the nominal technique, It stifles debate and interaction during the decision-making process. So even though all members of the group are together, they function autonomously so that individuality is not affected (Robbins and Judge, 2017).
Outside of work, I have been in situations where one strong personality can affect the decisions of everyone else in the group. When one person stands up and they are confident about what they are saying, regardless of it being fact or cap, people will follow. I think it is also important to take into account difference personalities when putting groups together. Maybe that is the wrong way to go about it but I would rather put groups of people together who I know will work out efficiently and effectively rather than chancing the outcome.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2017). Organizational behavior. Pearson Education Limited.
Becker, J., & Smith, E. N. (2021, September 17). Research: For crowdsourcing to work, everyone needs an equal voice. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved March 1, 2022, from https://hbr.org/2019/07/research-for-crowdsourcing-to-work-everyone-needs-an-equal-voice