[whatshisface]

Imagine two experts advising a leader. They're not going to fully communicate all of their expertise to him, so his decisions on topic A will probably be worse than expert A, and likewise for topic/expert B. He's going to make better decisions on joint A+B tasks that require combined and balanced knowledge, but both experts will (not incorrectly) see him as "not knowing as much about A/B as I do."

You can substitute the individual leader for a group whose consensus must be obtained and get another parable illustrating the same principle.

[yikesshescute]

So, the leader is an expert on “joint A+B tasks”? Then provided he, the leader, can identify, A tasks, B tasks and A+B tasks and correctly defer on the first two sets, won’t we get optimal decision making?

And are we sure that there really are A+B tasks?