It seems intuitive to think that in any group aiming to make the best decisions, equally balanced viewpoints are ideal. But maybe that's too simplistic—a recent study just found that odd-numbered groups made better decisions than even-numbered ones, simply by virtue of how the numbers worked out. As the Boston Globe's Ideas section reports:

In a study with significant implications for everyday life, two management researchers found that small groups with an odd number of members tend to work better than groups with an even number of members. The conventional wisdom, as confirmed in an initial survey, is that even numbers and even-numbered groups are better. However, in an experiment with discussion groups and in an analysis of dormitory groupings at Harvard, the researchers found that even-numbered groups resulted either in stalemate (e.g., two against two) or domination (e.g., three against one). In odd-numbered groups, disagreement often implies a swing vote (e.g., two against one), which encourages the majority to tread more carefully. One caveat is that the odd-number effect is less powerful in groups that are more diverse, because those groups are less cohesive in the first place.

Menon, T. & Phillips, K., "Getting Even vs. Being the Odd One Out: Conflict and Cohesion in Even and Odd Sized Groups," University of Chicago (November 2008).

[Image via Rich007]