Feed I will confess to watching last week's 'Derren Brown' programme, where he predicted the winning lottery numbers, with some intrigue. As a psychologist, friends and family ask (with a wink and a smile) whether I know how he does these things and, indeed, whether I might be able to do the same? (Unfortunately, the answer to both questions is no!)
However, I was interested in the technique he claims to use to predict the lottery numbers. The 'Wisdom of the Crowds' is a phenomenon first cited by Francis Galton in 1906. Galton reported that, in a competition to guess the weight of an ox, the average of the crowds' estimates was more accurate than both the individual guesses and those guesses made by cattle experts.
I'm not convinced by this as an explanation for predicting a set of random numbers (rigging the balls seems more plausible!) However, the point that groups of people make better decisions than individuals is certainly worth exploring.
That said, most of us aren't in the business of predicting ox weights, so what does this mean for business, decision making and leadership?
We know that a lack of diversity in voiced opinion (or 'Groupthink' as its known in psychological circles) can have disastrous consequences - one of the most famous being Kennedy's Bay of Pigs invasion, where no-one in the Whitehouse disagreed with the plan, despite significant concerns.
This raises the questions; Are leaders alert to these risks? Do they do anything to prevent them? I'm not so sure they do. In fact, I think some leaders actively encourage a lack of diverse input and critical evaluation of ideas. Indeed, if you genuinely think you are the most intelligent person in a meeting, why would you listen to anyone else?
One reason to listen is because the history books tell us this is a hugely risky strategy. Although supreme confidence may be valued, it also has an ugly side - namely arrogance. As well as being one of the most common de-railers of senior careers, there are a raft of high profile leaders, cited as arrogant, who have come unstuck in quite public ways; Dick Fulf, Geoff Skilling, Fred Goodman to name but a few.
We've seen the damage arrogance can do - both to business, and to the man (or woman) on the street; so perhaps now is the time to change the perception that steely confidence is a core strength of a leader while consultation and deliberation a weakness.
This isn't just a matter of tweaking how we promote leaders into their positions. It's more fundamental than that. The high value placed on confidence is engrained within the fibre of many organisations; in its language, competency frameworks, and reward systems. The natural outcome of this is arrogance at the top!
Coupled with the fact that over-confidence/arrogance is notoriously difficult to coach or develop in senior populations, perhaps now is the time to stop and think about how we manage talent. So, if anyone mentions that they are the smartest guy in the room - you'll know to run in the opposite direction!
However, I was interested in the technique he claims to use to predict the lottery numbers. The 'Wisdom of the Crowds' is a phenomenon first cited by Francis Galton in 1906. Galton reported that, in a competition to guess the weight of an ox, the average of the crowds' estimates was more accurate than both the individual guesses and those guesses made by cattle experts.
I'm not convinced by this as an explanation for predicting a set of random numbers (rigging the balls seems more plausible!) However, the point that groups of people make better decisions than individuals is certainly worth exploring.
That said, most of us aren't in the business of predicting ox weights, so what does this mean for business, decision making and leadership?
We know that a lack of diversity in voiced opinion (or 'Groupthink' as its known in psychological circles) can have disastrous consequences - one of the most famous being Kennedy's Bay of Pigs invasion, where no-one in the Whitehouse disagreed with the plan, despite significant concerns.
This raises the questions; Are leaders alert to these risks? Do they do anything to prevent them? I'm not so sure they do. In fact, I think some leaders actively encourage a lack of diverse input and critical evaluation of ideas. Indeed, if you genuinely think you are the most intelligent person in a meeting, why would you listen to anyone else?
One reason to listen is because the history books tell us this is a hugely risky strategy. Although supreme confidence may be valued, it also has an ugly side - namely arrogance. As well as being one of the most common de-railers of senior careers, there are a raft of high profile leaders, cited as arrogant, who have come unstuck in quite public ways; Dick Fulf, Geoff Skilling, Fred Goodman to name but a few.
We've seen the damage arrogance can do - both to business, and to the man (or woman) on the street; so perhaps now is the time to change the perception that steely confidence is a core strength of a leader while consultation and deliberation a weakness.
This isn't just a matter of tweaking how we promote leaders into their positions. It's more fundamental than that. The high value placed on confidence is engrained within the fibre of many organisations; in its language, competency frameworks, and reward systems. The natural outcome of this is arrogance at the top!
Coupled with the fact that over-confidence/arrogance is notoriously difficult to coach or develop in senior populations, perhaps now is the time to stop and think about how we manage talent. So, if anyone mentions that they are the smartest guy in the room - you'll know to run in the opposite direction!
