Two Head better than one head

Two Head better than one head ( Optimul Sol)
I would try to discuss the validity of the old notion “Two heads are better than one” and the implication in current business scenario.

Apparently the theory says the rational of coming up with a desired outcome lies in consensus and the more heads involved lesser the deviation. Again the word of caution; we are not talking about the desired outcome or opinion but the proximity of the assumption. A group answering a question or guessing a phenomenon is likely to be closer than an individual addressing the same puzzle. Although we are assuming that we have taken an equally distributed normalized people in the group who do not share common opinion.

There is a parallel theory which talks about conscious first approach. This could also cause a higher yield but if we plot a probability chart then probably the success rate would be 50% in some cases.

So what are we achieving through a group decision? The answer is normalization. This way we are mitigating risk and also directing the decision to achieve the required niche. Of course there is a compromise because of not taking abrupt one sided decisions in some cases which may help maximizing the gain in cases.

Let’s look into the below diagram which would help explaining the today’s management style which uses both the theories simultaneously. (Pics 1)

Let’s explain why most of the companies have opted for this model. In the bottom most layer the employee number is high where as the volume gradually goes down towards the top of the organization. Now we would consider the following cases.
1) Employee with extreme decision making capabilities.
a) Employees with super human capability. (Pics 2)

Here there is high success as the project is outperformed in each and every step and the success is huge. But unfortunately we cannot have so many super humans in the lower ladder as the number of people is more and there is a high probability that the mass is averaged out by people of both extremes.

b) Employees with high chances or error making.
This clearly shows a disaster. (Pics 3)

Now holistically we should take the advantage of the both models where as they show a unique capability to achieve the success. We would try to take the upper ladder highly one sided and the lower layer who can come to a common consensus. The top decision maker would set higher expectation and landmark where as the information or direction would be passed on to the lower levels. The extremely lower levels would be achievers without incurring much of risk and also would not show much upward deviation from the baseline. This way the targets are met.