IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v203y2025i3d10.1007_s11127-024-01210-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How good is a group decision?

Author

Listed:
  • Ye Lu

    (City University of Hong Kong)

  • Miao Song

    (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

  • Xiaoling Zhong

    (Shenzhen MSU-BIT University)

Abstract

This paper studies a committee’s competency in making a correct judgement. Specifically, we examine how the committee’s competency compares with the average, median, lowest, and highest competencies of individual members. We propose novel measures for these comparisons and demonstrate that the lower and upper bounds of each committee member’s competency have distinct and significant effects on the committee’s overall competency. Furthermore, our research reveals an interesting relationship between the committee’s competency and the distribution of member competencies. We find that as the number of members with competencies higher than $$\frac{1}{2}$$ 1 2 increases, the likelihood of the committee’s competency surpassing that of individual members also increases. Conversely, when more members possess competencies lower than $$\frac{1}{2}$$ 1 2 , the likelihood of the committee’s competency being lower than that of individual members also rises. To support this observation, we present theoretical findings from a comparison of the committee’s competency with the minimum and maximum competencies of its members.

Suggested Citation

  • Ye Lu & Miao Song & Xiaoling Zhong, 2025. "How good is a group decision?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 203(3), pages 445-464, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:203:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01210-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-024-01210-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-024-01210-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-024-01210-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:203:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01210-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.