I, personally, feel that instead of two it would need to be three to have a more diverse set of opinions and to break any stalemates. I've worked for many years with just one other person and the number of times where we had ideological differences and not enough exposure to alternatives are innumerable.
Yes, to be sure, I need to be more careful how I phrase this. I recently consulted with a VP of engineering who liked to bring 9 engineers together to review a database schema. I suggested more one-on-one meetings. He said, "Yes, I know you like less chefs in the kitchen." But that was not true, so I clarified with him: "I think it is great that you meet with those 9 engineers, but you should consider meeting with them either one at a time or maybe in groups of twos. The problem is that with nine people, on one video call, the conversation will either last 6 hours or some people won't be able to voice their concerns. There is a risk that the comments will remain at a general level. If you want to dive into the details, and surface the real risks of a given model, then hold smaller meetings. And really, the only purpose of those meetings is to surface the risks you face, so there is really no point to those larger meetings. Hold smaller meetings and surface the risk. But I am 100% okay with the idea of meeting with all 9 engineers, if you have the time to do that. Just meet with them in small groups. (And if you don't have the time to hold 7 or 8 or 9 separate meetings, then be strategic about who you meet with --- that is one of the most basic skills of leadership, knowing how to invest your time."
For anyone interested, I did write a small book on the theme of personal connections and face-to-face communication, being more important than processes or tools:
The one-on-one meetings don't always have to be with the same person. And of course, the particular person matters, some can be more of a hindrance than a benefit.
