Blog Post
Inside Which Two Heads Are Better Than One? — What Dr Bourke Taught Us About Better Decision and Communication
When a decision goes wrong, the blame usually lands on the person in charge — yet the real story often lies in who they invited into the room. And who is that?
That’s the question Dr Juliet Bourke set out to answer in her landmark book, Which Two Heads Are Better Than One? It’s not a leadership manual. It’s a field study in human thinking — why diversity of thought matters, how bias creeps in, what separates wise groups from misguided ones and the downstream influence on communication.
The Enron illusion
One of the book’s most striking examples is Enron — once hailed as the future of American business. It wasn’t that Enron lacked intelligence. It was overflowing with it. But its culture prized speed, confidence, and similarity. People who questioned assumptions were labelled “not team players.”
Dr Bourke describes how this homogeneity created a collective blindness — a system that rewarded short-term brilliance and punished dissent. Every decision reinforced the illusion of success until it all collapsed.
It’s a warning that still resonates: diversity isn’t a moral add-on; it’s a risk-management system. When everyone thinks the same way, a shared mistake looks like consensus.
The jury experiment
To test what happens when diverse thinkers face the same problem, Dr Bourke draws on a fascinating study of U.S. juries. Mixed-race juries and all-white juries were shown the same case. The diverse groups were more likely to reach the right decision -ie the one that fit the evidence better — because they thought differently.
They spent slighty more time deliberating. And they used that time well. They examined more facts.They made fewer factual errors. And, crucially, they were more open to revising their views when challenged.
It wasn’t that diversity guaranteed the “right” verdict — it simply improved the quality of reasoning.That’s the quiet magic of cognitive diversity: it slows certainty just enough to let evidence breathe.
The six lenses of decision-making
From dozens of case studies, Bourke distilled six distinct ways people approach complex problems:
Outcomes – What are we trying to achieve?
Options – What are the alternatives?
Risk – What could go wrong?
Evidence – What proof supports this?
People – Who’s involved and how will they be affected?
Process – What’s the path from idea to execution?
Most of us favour one or two of these lenses. Leaders, Dr Bourke found, tend to lean heavily toward Outcomes and Options, which makes sense — they’re paid to deliver results. But when a team is made up mostly of people who think alike (for example way more people who think through an outcomes or options lens), its collective blind spots multiply.
Why the "smartest" groups still fail
Dr Bourke doesn’t romanticise diversity. She’s clear that simply putting different people in a room isn’t enough. If the group culture rewards speed over reflection, or harmony over truth, diverse voices get silenced before they can shape the outcome.
The research points to three conditions for smarter decisions:
Diverse perspectives — create a genuinely diverse thinking group.
Psychological safety — appoint a leader who can create an environment in which people can disagree without penalty.
Deliberate structure — don’t do random brainstorming, follow a clear, transparent process.
When those three align, “two heads” really are better than one. Without them, you just get louder arguments.
From research to reflection
Reading Which Two Heads Are Better Than One? is both humbling and energising. It reminds us that good judgment isn’t innate — it’s designed. Every meeting, boardroom, or strategy off-site is a test of how well a group can think together under pressure.
And while many leadership books talk about charisma or communication, Dr Bourke’s work goes deeper — into the mechanics of thought itself.
Why it still matters
The world hasn’t become simpler since Enron. We’re now surrounded by algorithms that mirror our preferences, workplaces that reward speed, and information systems that amplify certainty. Dr Bourke’s message feels even more urgent: the best defence against bias is diversity — but only if we learn to use it.
A note from us
At Wizer, we’ve spent years exploring how groups make decisions and what it means to design wise crowds. Juliet Bourke’s six decision lenses became part of that journey — forming the foundation for our Decision Profiles, which help teams see the balance (or imbalance) in their own decision styles.
Her book remains a must-read for anyone serious about understanding how thinking diversity translates into better outcomes.
Explore Juliet Bourke’s book Which Two Heads Are Better Than One? https://www.wizer.business/resources/which-two-heads
