Winkler's Law of Committee Diminishing Returns
Point of parliamentary procedure . . .
We can’t all be above average. As long as there is any deviation, it must be the case that half of us is always below (above) the median. Some of us are always below (above) the average.1 These are fundamental mathematical truths that we socially and psychologically wrestle with all the time. They rub up against our social desirability bias as well as our general desire to ignore painful truths.
Being honest at the sake of being unpleasant is not something I have trouble with—in fact I encourage it.2 So be tolerant as you read the following.
Winkler's Law of Committee Diminishing Returns: The 80-20 rule applies to committee-member capabilities in a compounding way such that roughly 20% of the committee contributes roughly 80% of the capabilities of the committee (intellectual, effectiveness, ability to solve problems, etc.) and then the remaining committee members once the top 20% are removed now exhibit the same 80-20 breakdown and so on from there.
As such, the least valuable members of the committee are not very valuable at all in comparison to the most valuable or even the average member. This is true of every committee or board that I have seen in action, reported to, or been a member of. And often I was that least-valuable member.
This isn't to say that those lower-valued members are not in themselves capable or in fact valuable to the committee overall. So yes, there's a bit of a paradox here.
Einstein is going to be a very heavy lifter on a theoretical physics research team. But if you put Einstein on a committee of comedy writers, he wouldn't be able to provide much value. Participate in enough committees, and you will find yourself in the role of Einstein in both ways.
There is also value in numbers and in stupid questions. Thoughtful people added to a committee can provide valuable heft to the committee. Of course, this carries the dangers of group think, which is disguised as good thinking giving the committee credibility simply because of sheer numbers or the mere the stature of those otherwise least valuable members, as well as distraction and diminishing returns dragging down effectiveness.
Regarding the value of stupid questions, people completely out of their depth added to a committee can keep the more valuable members in check including forcing grounding and relatability. Again, dangers exist in the form of distraction and failure to launch beyond the base level where the lowest common denominator resides.
Perhaps none of this seems revelatory to you, but look again at the implications of the law. In a ten-person committee 80% of the contribution comes from the top two people. Since roughly two of the remaining eight people will account for 80% of the remaining contribution, only 4% of the total contribution will come from the bottom six members.
You can see how while no one would utter this out loud they certainly exhibit it in behavior nonetheless. Watch as a committee will wait or postpone conducting business if a key person (top 40% much less 20% member) is absent but move right along if a weak member is away. “Let’s give Bob a few more minutes before beginning” is contrasted with “We’ll bring Alice up to speed once she arrives”.3
Two important corollaries to the law.
First: Lower-valued members can improve their contribution and higher-valued members can stop being so valuable relatively or absolutely speaking.
Second: The broader the scope of the committee’s duties, the more fluid the positioning of members’ effectiveness. “Bob is your man when looking at marketing questions, but Alice is indispensable when it comes to finances.”
Some implications:
Your vote and point of view is absolutely NOT as important as anyone else on the committee. It might be higher or lower depending on the contribution you actually bring to the specific issue at hand or work of the committee in general.
You certainly can add value regardless of you positional contribution margin.
You definitely should embrace your role and seek to discover/rediscover it during your tenure as well as work to improve it.
As I think about it, this law along with its corollaries applies near and far. Any team with sufficient diversity along any relevant dimension will be subject to it. 80-20 is of course a rule of thumb. Sometimes it is 60-50, etc. That fact doesn’t change the law. It just allows for its strength and truth.
You may notice that I said “some” rather than “half” when discussing average. This is a common technical mistake made often as seen in the adage “X% [73 or 80 or 90, I’ve seen all of these] of all drivers think they are above average when only half can be”. Actually any percentage below 100% can be above average assuming a non-perfectly-normal distribution, which driving most certainly is.
At the risk of bragging I’d say my particular combination of conscientiousness and disagreeableness is a strong feature more people should strive for or at least allow for in me and others like me.
As I reread this I am struck by how familiar this “original thought” is to me. I fear I am stealing it from something I read or hear before. Robin Hanson comes to mind for sure. My apologies for any lack of attribution, which is completely unintentional.