THE IMPORTANCE
Between 1998 and 2006, McDonald's held an investment in Chipotle and struggled to make it work. Scott Page later analysed the decision group and found it had overweighted outcomes and options while giving little weight to people and process — supplier relationships, employee culture, operational rigour. The E. coli outbreaks of 2015 read, in his analysis, as the downstream consequence of a cognitively narrow group.
THREE RESEARCH STREAMS
Where the evidence comes from
These findings were produced separately, in different fields, over roughly two decades. None of them set out to prove the others right.
Dr Juliet Bourke — what shows up in organisations
Attribution rules for this block: her figures are "200+ organisations advised" or "450 leaders studied", and those two numbers are never blended into one claim. She is described as a researcher and author on cognitive diversity and inclusive leadership. Her employment history does not appear.
Scott Page — why the mathematics hold
Page is specific about the limit. On routine, well-understood work, a group of similar people is efficient, and difference adds friction without adding much. The bonus shows up on complex decisions where the problem is genuinely open. Wizer is built for the second kind.
James Surowiecki — the conditions
Before the mathematics existed, a financial journalist made the case from observation. In The Wisdom of Crowds (2004), Surowiecki set out the conditions under which a group beats its smartest member: diversity, independence, decentralisation, and a way of aggregating what people think.
20%
Increase in innovation
Dr Juliet Bourke, Which Two Heads Are Better Than One?
30%
Reduction in decision errors.
Dr Juliet Bourke, Which Two Heads Are Better Than One?
THE BIASES
What goes wrong in the room
Three patterns account for a large share of poor group decisions. All three are structural, which is why capable and well-intentioned people run into them.
Social bias
Who gets listened to. Seniority, volume and status decide whose view carries, and other perspectives go unheard even when they are in the room.
Communication that lands
What gets valued. Groups over-weight what confirms an existing view and under-weight unfamiliar sources, so the evidence base narrows as the discussion goes on.
Capacity bias
How much complexity a group can carry. Past a certain load, people simplify and fall back on the familiar option.
HOW WIZER APPLIES IT
From research to the
decision room
Wizer turns this into three connected things. Decision Profile Mapping shows how individuals and teams approach decisions. Panel Strength assesses whether a given group is fit for the decision in front of it, looking at which decision styles are present or missing, the mix of strategic, operational and frontline experience, and how homogeneous the perspectives are. The Recommendation Engine takes that gap and names specific people who close it.
The seven Decision Power Profiles are Achiever, Guardian, Collaborator, Visionary, Analyzer, Deliverer and Explorer. Each describes how a person approaches a decision rather than who they are, which is the line between this and personality testing.
