When making decisions, there’s an ongoing debate: are groups better at reaching the right outcome, or do individuals make better choices? Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, and the answer often depends on the situation. 

The Case for Groups: Wisdom of Crowds

Groups often outperform individuals when solving complex problems. The Wisdom of Crowds idea shows that when diverse people contribute independent perspectives, the collective result can be more accurate than any single expert’s input.

For example, when a team estimates project timelines or forecasts risks, a range of experiences improves the accuracy of predictions. Each person adds a piece to the puzzle, creating a more complete picture.

The Individual Strikes Back: Expertise Over Aggregation

While groups excel in leveraging diverse perspectives, individuals often shine in scenarios requiring rapid, specialized expertise. Herbert Simon’s concept of bounded rationality explains how an expert—such as a surgeon during a high-risk procedure—can make split-second decisions effectively, even without exhaustive deliberation. In such high-stakes contexts, consulting a team could waste critical time and lead to poorer outcomes.

Groups Counter: Shared Mental Models

Even in high-stakes situations, groups have their advantages. Teams with shared mental models—like a surgical team or an aviation crew—coordinate seamlessly. Each member knows their role and can anticipate others’ actions, improving overall outcomes.

For example, a pilot and co-pilot work together to cross-check decisions. This distributed cognition reduces the risk of errors, making the group stronger than any single individual.

The Individual Advantage: Creativity in Isolation

Some of the most innovative breakthroughs come from individuals working alone. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow theory suggests that people perform at their peak when fully immersed in their work, free from external distractions.

Take Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin. Their transformative ideas didn’t come from brainstorming sessions—they emerged from deep, focused thought. Groups, by contrast, can stifle creativity by leaning toward consensus and safe ideas.

Group Creativity: Building on Each Other’s Ideas

On the flip side, Kurt Lewin’s work on group dynamics shows that collaboration often sparks creativity. Brainstorming sessions allow people to build on one another’s ideas, generating solutions that no single person might have imagined.

Pixar, for instance, credits its success to collaborative feedback sessions. The company’s “brain trust” meetings encourage open discussion, turning rough ideas into blockbuster films. In these cases, groups amplify creativity instead of holding it back.

Avoiding Group Pitfalls: The Risks of Groupthink

Groups aren’t perfect. Irving Janis’s Groupthink theory highlights how the desire for harmony can suppress dissent, leading to flawed decisions. Groupthink occurs when team members prioritize consensus over critical analysis, often ignoring warning signs or alternative perspectives. This phenomenon is especially dangerous in high-stakes situations, where the cost of poor decisions can be immense.

Groupthink thrives in environments where members feel pressured to conform or fear voicing objections. Overconfidence in the group’s collective wisdom can also blind members to risks or contrary evidence. Teams operating under these conditions may develop tunnel vision, mistaking unanimity for sound judgment.

A novel way to counteract this dynamic is demonstrated in the movie World War Z with the “Tenth Man” principle. This approach designates one person to challenge the majority’s view, regardless of how improbable or controversial it may seem. By formalizing dissent, this devil’s advocate ensures that alternative perspectives are considered, offering a structured method to counter the dangers of groupthink.

Groups Mitigate Bias: Diverse Perspectives Matter

While individuals avoid groupthink, they’re still prone to cognitive biases like anchoring or confirmation bias. Behavioral economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky found that groups are better at challenging assumptions and broadening perspectives.

In a jury deliberation, for example, the group process often leads to fairer, more balanced outcomes than a single juror’s decision. Multiple viewpoints ensure that biases are challenged, leading to more robust conclusions.

Individual Speed: Decisiveness Under Pressure

When decisions need to be made quickly, individuals often outperform groups. Jocko Willink’s Decentralized Command Theory emphasizes the value of autonomy in high-pressure situations.

Military operations often rely on commanders making fast decisions without waiting for group consensus. A single decisive leader can act swiftly, while a group may get bogged down in debate.

Groups Handle Complexity Better

Speed isn’t always the priority. Complex problems often require input from diverse perspectives, which is where groups excel. Scott Page’s Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem shows that cognitively diverse teams outperform even the most talented individuals when solving intricate problems.

For instance, tackling climate change requires scientists, policymakers, and technologists to collaborate. No single expert, no matter how skilled, can address such a multifaceted issue alone.

Where Does This Leave Us?

So, which is better: individuals or groups? The answer depends on the context.

• If you need quick, decisive action or deep expertise, individuals are usually the way to go.
• If the problem is complex, requires creativity, or involves multiple perspectives, groups are often the better choice.

Many organizations now use hybrid approaches, combining the strengths of both. Agile teams, for example, encourage collaboration while giving individuals autonomy over their work. This balance leverages the creativity and accountability of individuals while benefiting from the collective wisdom of the group.

Final Thoughts

The debate between individual and group decision-making doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all answer. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Understanding when to use one approach over the other is key to making better decisions.

The goal isn’t to pick a side but to recognize that both individuals and groups have a role to play in tackling the challenges we face. Sometimes, the lone expert will shine. Other times, the collective voice of a group will prevail. The best outcomes often come from knowing how to balance the two.