Thriving in Entropy is a series of frameworks, real-world cases, and neuroscience backed tools for adaptive, resilient thinking that excels in complexity and change.
Ever feel like you're facing today's wild, fast-changing problems all alone? You're not the only one. But what if the smartest person in the room... is the room?
This chapter is all about moving beyond relying on just a few experts. We'll show you how to tap into the combined brainpower of your entire group. Think of it as upgrading from isolated pockets of knowledge to a smart, connected network of wisdom. Get this right, and you'll solve trickier problems and spot opportunities that individuals, no matter how brilliant, would miss. The Collective Intelligence Index (CII) introduced here helps measure how effectively your organization fosters this group genius, which is crucial for robust entropy response (ERI) and effective uncertainty navigation (UNI). And a quick heads-up: making people feel safe to speak up isn't just a nice-to-have; it's the bedrock of a truly smart team.
So, what's the big deal about group smarts? It's not just about cramming more smart people into a room. Science actually backs this up. For instance, a Harvard Business School study found that companies effectively utilizing collective intelligence achieved significantly better results on tough challenges than those sticking to old-school, top-down expertise (Ramirez & Chen, 2023). And this wasn't just because they had more 'stars' – it held true across different industries and resource levels.
Neuroscience even gives us a peek under the hood (Chen et al., 2022; Martinez & Patel, 2024). When teams truly collaborate, their brains literally sync up, allowing them to weave together different viewpoints into a much richer understanding than any one person could manage. The takeaway? Real collective intelligence isn't accidental; it's about intentionally creating the right conditions for brains to connect and build something bigger.
Recent advances in neuroscience have revolutionized our understanding of how groups think together. Using technologies like hyperscanning (where multiple people's brain activity is monitored simultaneously during interaction), researchers have discovered fascinating patterns in how effective teams collaborate.
A groundbreaking study published in Nature Neuroscience (Chen et al., 2022) found that when high-performing teams work together on complex problems, their neural activity actually synchronizes in specific ways. The frontopolar cortex, which plays a key role in integrating information, shows significantly increased coordination across team members compared to lower-performing groups. This neural synchronization allows team members to build on each other's ideas more effectively, creating insights that no individual could generate alone.
Furthermore, Martinez and Patel's 2024 research demonstrated that this neural synchronization doesn't happen automatically—it requires specific conditions. Teams with high psychological safety showed substantially stronger neural coupling than teams where members felt unsafe to contribute. The researchers also found that diverse thinking styles produced more novel solutions, but only when combined with effective interaction patterns that allowed these different perspectives to be integrated.
These neurological findings align perfectly with organizational research. When teams leverage collective intelligence effectively, they don't just add together individual contributions—they create emergent insights that transcend what any member could produce independently. This explains why organizations that master collective intelligence consistently outperform those relying on individual expertise alone, regardless of how brilliant those individuals might be.
So, how do you build a team that's smarter together? It boils down to five key ingredients, as pinpointed by researchers like Woolley et al. (2022) and expanded by Demmer et al. (2025, forthcoming). Get these right, and you're on your way. Miss them, and you might just end up with a muddled compromise.
Brainpower Variety (Cognitive Diversity): Think different thinking styles, backgrounds, and ways of seeing the world. It's about mixing analytical thinkers with intuitive ones, bringing in people with diverse experiences, and ensuring various viewpoints (like different customer perspectives) are heard.
How to implement it: Go beyond traditional diversity metrics to intentionally include different thinking styles and mental models. Use tools like cognitive style assessments to map your team's thinking preferences. When forming teams for complex challenges, ensure representation of analytical, intuitive, practical, and conceptual thinkers. Create "perspective rotation" exercises where team members must approach problems from viewpoints different from their own. Regularly bring in outsiders with fresh perspectives to challenge team thinking. For example, a city planning committee might include an architect (spatial/visual thinker), an economist (analytical), a community activist (relational/intuitive), and an engineer (practical/logical) to ensure a well-rounded approach to urban development.
Speak-Up Culture (Psychological Safety): Where everyone feels safe to share ideas, ask questions, and even disagree, without fear. This means truly valuing every contribution, treating 'failures' as learning moments, and making it okay to challenge the status quo constructively.
How to implement it: Leaders must model vulnerability by admitting their own uncertainties and mistakes. Establish clear norms that separate idea critique from personal criticism. Create structured opportunities for all voices to be heard, such as round-robin input sessions. Implement "blameless post-mortems" that focus on learning rather than fault-finding. Recognize and reward those who raise concerns or offer dissenting views that prove valuable. Measure psychological safety regularly through anonymous surveys and address issues promptly. A non-profit organization aiming to improve volunteer retention could create regular, facilitated feedback sessions where volunteers feel safe to share concerns about processes or leadership without fear of reprisal, leading to actionable improvements. For instance, one such non-profit discovered volunteers were hesitant to commit long-term due to unclear impact metrics; by creating a safe space for this feedback, they co-developed a new impact reporting system that significantly boosted morale and retention.
Smart Talking (Interaction Patterns): How your team actually shares info and builds on ideas. This includes things like ensuring everyone gets a turn to speak and having ways to connect ideas across different people. This is more about the design of communication (e.g., structures like 1-2-4-All, tools for idea mapping, protocols for debate) that enable effective exchange and synthesis of diverse viewpoints.
How to implement it: Train teams in specific conversation techniques like "Yes, and..." building rather than "Yes, but..." blocking. Implement structured discussion formats such as "1-2-4-All" that ensure all members contribute before convergence. Use visual collaboration tools that allow ideas to be connected and built upon. Establish "idea quotas" where a minimum number of options must be generated before evaluation begins. Create cross-pollination sessions where different teams share their approaches to similar challenges. Teach facilitation skills broadly so more team members can guide productive discussions.
Idea Weaving (Aggregation Mechanisms): Ways to pull together all those different thoughts into something clear and useful. This could involve methods that weigh ideas by relevance, not just who said them, and refining outputs through several rounds.
How to implement it: Develop clear criteria for evaluating ideas based on merit rather than source. Use techniques like multi-voting or dot voting to identify promising directions democratically. Implement staged refinement processes where ideas evolve through multiple iterations. Create synthesis roles responsible for identifying patterns and connections across contributions. Use digital platforms that allow anonymous input to reduce status effects. Train teams in integrative thinking—the ability to hold opposing ideas in mind and create new solutions that contain elements of both.
Smooth Sailing (Facilitation Approaches): Guiding the group to stay on track, manage disagreements well, and keep biases in check. This involves the human guidance and active management of group dynamics during interactions, ensuring the designed interaction patterns are used effectively and that psychological safety is maintained.
How to implement it: Develop internal facilitation capability through formal training programs. Create a toolkit of bias-mitigation techniques such as pre-mortems, devil's advocacy, and assumption testing. Establish clear decision rights and processes before discussions begin to avoid confusion. Use visual progress tracking to maintain momentum and focus. Implement energy management practices for longer sessions, including breaks and modality shifts. Train facilitators to recognize and address common group dynamics issues like domination, groupthink, and conflict avoidance.
Want to know how your team stacks up? You can actually measure this with something called the Collective Intelligence Index (CII). It looks at how well you're doing on those five keys (Cognitive Diversity, Psychological Safety, Interaction Patterns, Aggregation Mechanisms, and Facilitation Approaches), giving each a score from 1–10. This index is crucial because it quantifies your organization's ability to harness the "wisdom of the crowd," a vital component for effective problem-solving in complex, entropic environments.
The formula is basically:
CII = (CogDiv × PsySafe × IntPat × AggMech × FacApp) ÷ 10000This gives you a score out of 10. A higher score means your team is better at tapping into its collective smarts. It's a handy way to see where you're strong and where you might need to focus your efforts (as detailed in Table 2–1 in Chapter 2).
Why this index matters: The CII provides a quantitative measure of your organization's ability to leverage the combined intelligence of its members. The multiplicative formula is intentional—it shows that weakness in any dimension significantly limits overall collective intelligence. For example, high cognitive diversity (9) and psychological safety (8) won't help much if you have poor interaction patterns (2), as diverse perspectives won't be effectively integrated. By tracking your CII over time, you can measure whether your investments in collective intelligence are paying off and identify specific areas that need attention.
Need to see this in action? Look no further than Netflix. Their journey from mailing DVDs to creating global hits is a masterclass in using collective intelligence to stay ahead. While old-school media companies often relied on a few top execs calling the shots, Netflix built a different kind of system – one designed to pull in and weave together ideas from all over.
How'd they do it? They hit all five keys hard:
Brainpower Variety: Netflix intentionally incorporates more thinking styles and knowledge areas into big decisions than is typical in the industry. This helped them identify substantially more viable strategic options when the industry was in flux. For example, when deciding to invest in international markets, they didn't just rely on financial analysts; they brought in cultural anthropologists, local content experts, and technologists specializing in regional infrastructure to get a richer, more diverse understanding of the challenges and opportunities.
Specific practices: They use cognitive style assessments when forming teams to ensure diverse thinking approaches. For major decisions, they create "perspective maps" that identify which viewpoints need to be represented (technical, creative, financial, customer, etc.) and ensure each has advocates in the discussion. They regularly bring in external perspectives through advisory panels and cross-industry forums. For content development, they deliberately pair executives with different backgrounds and thinking styles to evaluate proposals.
Speak-Up Culture: They've got real systems for making sure all ideas are heard, learning from flops without blame (formal post-mortems!), and even 'red teams' to challenge popular ideas. Result? They unearth significantly more potentially disruptive ideas than competitors. Their famed "culture deck" explicitly encourages radical candor and open debate, creating an environment where employees at all levels feel empowered to voice opinions, even if they contradict senior leadership. This was evident when junior engineers raised concerns about a proposed technology shift, leading to a more robust, revised plan.
Specific practices: Their famous "sunshining" practice encourages employees to openly discuss mistakes and what they learned. They conduct regular psychological safety surveys and hold managers accountable for their team's scores. Their "farming for dissent" approach actively seeks out opposing viewpoints before major decisions. They've established clear norms separating idea critique from personal criticism, allowing robust debate without damaging relationships.
Smart Talking: They use clear rules for discussions so everyone gets a say, connect different teams to spark new ideas (generating numerous cross-domain innovations annually!), and build on ideas through multiple rounds. This means they achieve substantially higher information utilization. For instance, their "context, not control" management philosophy ensures that information is widely shared, and teams are encouraged to use tools like shared documents and internal wikis to build upon each other's work asynchronously, allowing for more thoughtful contributions.
Specific practices: They train all employees in structured discussion techniques like "stack ranking with discussion" that ensure all voices are heard. Their "context not control" approach provides clear information to teams without dictating solutions. They use digital collaboration platforms that allow asynchronous contribution and idea building. Their cross-functional "innovation incubators" regularly bring together people from different departments to explore emerging opportunities.
Idea Weaving: Decisions aren't just top-down; they weigh input based on relevance, not rank, and refine big ideas through several cycles, more than is typical in the industry. This has led to significantly higher decision quality. When developing new features for their platform, ideas from various sources (data analytics, user research, engineering insights) are synthesized through iterative prototyping and A/B testing, with the most effective combinations being scaled.
Specific practices: They use multi-stage idea refinement processes where concepts evolve through several iterations before final decisions. Their "informed captains" approach gives decision authority to those with the best information, not necessarily the highest rank. They employ formal synthesis techniques to integrate diverse inputs into coherent strategies. Their "idea tournaments" allow promising concepts to be refined and tested through multiple rounds of feedback.
Smooth Sailing: Netflix actively works to reduce bias in decisions, manages disagreements to find better solutions (a high percentage of conflicts lead to improvements!), and keeps everyone focused and energized. This makes their collaboration substantially more efficient. They train managers in facilitation skills and use structured decision-making frameworks (like written narratives and data-driven arguments) to ensure discussions are productive and focused on the merits of ideas rather than personalities.
Specific practices: They've developed an internal facilitation capability with trained discussion leaders for important meetings. They use formal bias-mitigation techniques like pre-mortems and assumption testing for major decisions. They've established clear decision frameworks that specify who has input, who decides, and how conflicts are resolved. They maintain a "decision journal" that tracks the quality of past decisions to identify and address systematic biases.
They back this up with solid systems, like tracking numerous specific metrics for collaboration and having clear ways to make decisions that blend diverse views with speed. It's no surprise they score very high on the Collective Intelligence Index (CII), helping them consistently outmaneuver others in a tough market (see Table 2–1 in Chapter 2).
While Netflix demonstrates collective intelligence in a creative, digital context, Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine development shows how these same principles apply in a scientific, highly regulated environment. Their unprecedented achievement—developing a safe, effective vaccine in less than a year—required harnessing collective intelligence across diverse disciplines and organizations.
Multidisciplinary Integration: Pfizer assembled teams that combined virology, immunology, clinical research, manufacturing, regulatory affairs, and logistics expertise—disciplines that traditionally worked sequentially rather than collaboratively. For example, manufacturing engineers were involved in early research discussions to anticipate production challenges, a level of cognitive diversity unusual in traditional pharma timelines.
Cross-Sector Collaboration: They partnered with BioNTech, combining Pfizer's pharmaceutical development expertise with BioNTech's mRNA technology innovation, creating a cognitive diversity that neither organization possessed alone.
Global Perspective Integration: They incorporated insights from scientists, physicians, and public health experts across multiple countries, ensuring diverse cultural and healthcare system perspectives informed their approach.
Patient Voice Inclusion: Even under accelerated timelines, they maintained mechanisms to incorporate patient perspectives into trial design and implementation.
"No Blame" Error Reporting: They implemented systems for rapid reporting of unexpected results or concerns without fear of repercussion, critical during accelerated development. A scientist who observed an unexpected anomaly in an early trial felt safe to report it immediately, leading to a quick investigation and adjustment, rather than fearing it would reflect poorly on their work.
Leadership Vulnerability: Senior leaders openly acknowledged uncertainties and knowledge gaps, creating an environment where others felt safe to do the same.
Celebrating Learning: They recognized teams not just for successes but for quickly identifying problems and generating solutions, reinforcing that raising issues was valued.
Protected Dissent Channels: They established formal channels for scientists to raise concerns about any aspect of the development process, ensuring safety considerations weren't compromised by speed.
Rapid Cycle Discussions: They implemented structured 24-hour information-sharing cycles across global teams, ensuring insights were quickly disseminated. This involved using shared digital platforms and standardized reporting templates to ensure everyone was working with the latest information.
Cross-Functional Huddles: Daily meetings brought together representatives from different specialties to share updates and identify interdependencies.
Boundary-Spanning Roles: They created dedicated positions responsible for translating between different technical domains (e.g., between clinical research and manufacturing).
Simultaneous Rather Than Sequential Input: They redesigned traditional pharmaceutical development processes to gather input from all relevant disciplines simultaneously rather than passing work sequentially.
Evidence-Based Synthesis: They developed frameworks for integrating different types of evidence (laboratory, clinical, manufacturing) with appropriate weighting. For instance, data from pre-clinical animal studies, early human trials, and manufacturing test runs were aggregated using a multi-criteria decision model to select the most promising vaccine candidates.
Decision Boards: Cross-functional boards evaluated emerging data and made recommendations based on integrated expertise rather than siloed perspectives.
Iterative Protocol Development: Clinical trial protocols evolved through multiple refinement cycles incorporating diverse input before finalization.
Scenario Planning Integration: They synthesized multiple future scenarios developed by different teams into robust contingency plans.
Dedicated Integration Teams: They established teams specifically responsible for facilitating collaboration across organizational boundaries. These facilitators were skilled in managing complex group dynamics and ensuring all voices were heard, particularly in high-stakes meetings where scientific opinions might differ strongly.
Scientific Debate Structures: They implemented formal structures for scientific disagreements to be productively explored and resolved.
Bias Mitigation Techniques: They used techniques like pre-mortems and red teams to identify potential blind spots in their approach.
Energy Management: They implemented deliberate practices to maintain team energy and focus during the marathon development effort.
The results were extraordinary: Pfizer achieved what many thought impossible, developing a vaccine in months rather than years while maintaining rigorous safety and efficacy standards. Their approach demonstrates that collective intelligence isn't just for creative industries—it's equally powerful for complex scientific challenges requiring precision and regulatory compliance.
The principles of collective intelligence are not confined to digital giants. Consider "PrecisionCo," a B2B automotive parts manufacturer, which found itself lagging as electric vehicle technology disrupted its traditional market. To foster innovation, as highlighted in this chapter's focus on tapping group genius, PrecisionCo's R&D division took a novel approach in 2019.
Instead of relying on its traditional, formal R&D cycle, the division head introduced a culture shift by creating a small "Innovation Pod." This team was deliberately composed of engineers with different specializations, a market analyst, and a production line veteran, ensuring cognitive diversity. They were given significant autonomy and psychological safety to test bold ideas without needing executive approval for each step. Their interaction patterns were designed to be rapid and iterative, with daily stand-ups and weekly deep-dive problem-solving sessions.
One of their early experiments involved using 3D-printing for rapid prototyping of new component designs—a radical departure from the company's months-long milling process. The pod collectively set a challenging metric: reducing prototype time from 8 weeks to 8 days. Through intense collaboration, leveraging their diverse expertise to troubleshoot and refine the process (an example of effective aggregation mechanisms), and with facilitation that encouraged open debate and idea-building, they achieved a 10-day turnaround by mid-2020. This quick, collaborative experimentation cycle allowed PrecisionCo to pitch a new custom part to a major EV client ahead of competitors.
PrecisionCo's Innovation Pod demonstrates how a traditionally conservative manufacturing firm can apply principles of collective intelligence—cognitive diversity, psychological safety, effective interaction, and idea aggregation—to break through stagnation and remain competitive in a shifting market. The smartest people in their R&D room became "the room" itself.
Ready to boost your team's collective intelligence? The first step is figuring out where you stand. The Collective Intelligence Assessment (CIA) is a great tool for this. It helps you look at those five key areas we've talked about: Brainpower Variety, Speak-Up Culture, Smart Talking, Idea Weaving, and Smooth Sailing.
For each of these, you'd look at specific signs. For 'Brainpower Variety,' you might check team makeup or how many different viewpoints are in decision meetings. For 'Speak-Up Culture,' you could use surveys (like Amy Edmondson's scale), observe meetings to see who's talking, or look at how 'failed' ideas are treated. (The full framework, adapted from Woolley et al., 2022, and Demmer et al., 2025, forthcoming, has detailed indicators and ways to measure them – see Fig 6–1 for the nitty-gritty.)
When conducting your assessment, consider these guiding questions for each dimension:
For Cognitive Diversity:
For Psychological Safety:
For Interaction Patterns:
For Aggregation Mechanisms:
For Facilitation Approaches:
Teams usually fit into one of four patterns:
The Know-It-All Silos: Knowledge is locked up in departments or with certain experts. Teamwork is hit-or-miss, and a lot of good ideas never see the light of day. Typical challenges include frustration from those whose ideas aren't heard, slow decision-making due to information bottlenecks, and a general lack of innovation. Leaders often struggle to get buy-in for cross-functional initiatives.
Behavioral indicators: Information hoarding is common; expertise is treated as territory to be defended; cross-functional meetings are rare or unproductive; the same few voices dominate discussions; people are reluctant to share incomplete ideas; decisions are made in isolation and then announced; failures are hidden or blamed on others.
The Idea Collectors: They gather lots of input but don't really blend it. Decisions might come down to who's loudest or who has the most votes, not the best combined idea. The whole is often just the sum of its parts, or sometimes less. Team members may feel heard initially but become disengaged when their input doesn't lead to integrated solutions. Leaders might struggle with "analysis paralysis" or implementing disjointed initiatives.
Behavioral indicators: Many ideas are generated but few are developed; brainstorming sessions produce long lists without synthesis; decisions often reflect compromise rather than integration; meetings feel inclusive but inefficient; the group struggles to prioritize or focus; discussions tend to cycle without resolution; implementation suffers from lack of shared understanding.
The Smooth Coordinators: Good at sharing info and working together on projects. They can get complex things done but might miss out on those truly game-changing ideas that come from deeper mixing and healthy debate. The primary frustration here can be a lack of breakthrough thinking or a feeling that the team is playing it too safe. Leaders may find it hard to drive disruptive innovation.
Behavioral indicators: Projects run efficiently; information flows well; people are generally cooperative; conflict is rare but so is productive disagreement; incremental improvements happen regularly but breakthrough innovations are uncommon; processes are well-defined but may be rigid; harmony is valued over creative tension.
The Synergy Masters: These teams nail all five keys. They actively seek out different views, make it super safe to contribute, have smart ways of talking and combining ideas, and guide discussions well. They're the ones consistently coming up with brilliant solutions and scoring high on the CII. Challenges are usually about maintaining this high level of functioning as the team evolves or faces new pressures.
Behavioral indicators: Diverse perspectives are actively sought and valued; people speak up freely, including with concerns or dissent; ideas build on each other rather than competing; conflicts lead to better solutions rather than winners and losers; the group can shift smoothly between divergent and convergent thinking; complex problems are broken down effectively; solutions emerge that surprise and delight even the participants.
Knowing your team's current style helps you focus your efforts where they'll make the biggest difference.
Getting better at collective intelligence takes practice, usually over 9–18 months for big changes, though you can often see improvements in specific teams in just 3–6 months. A few golden rules:
So, what can you actually do?
Implementation example: A technology company struggling with innovation conducted cognitive style assessments across their product development teams. They discovered they were heavily weighted toward analytical thinkers with similar educational backgrounds. In response, they created "perspective diversity" requirements for project teams, ensuring each included analytical, intuitive, practical, and conceptual thinkers. They also established a "fresh eyes" program where people from different departments (including customer service, marketing, and operations) participated in product development sessions. Within six months, their idea pipeline showed a 40% increase in novel concepts that addressed previously overlooked customer needs.
Implementation example: A healthcare organization noticed that medical errors weren't being reported promptly because staff feared blame. They implemented a comprehensive psychological safety initiative that included: leadership training on responding constructively to bad news; a "learning from failure" protocol that focused on system improvements rather than individual blame; regular psychological safety surveys with results shared transparently; and recognition for those who raised concerns that led to improvements. Within three months, error reporting increased by 65%, and more importantly, repeat errors decreased as systemic issues were addressed more effectively.
Implementation example: A financial services firm found their weekly strategy meetings were dominated by a few voices and rarely produced innovative solutions. They redesigned their collaboration approach by: training all team members in the "1-2-4-All" method (reflecting individually, then in pairs, then foursomes, before full group discussion); implementing digital whiteboards where ideas could be contributed anonymously and built upon asynchronously before meetings; establishing "idea quotas" requiring a minimum number of options before evaluation began; and creating visual templates that helped connect different concepts. These changes led to more equitable participation and a substantial improvement in the quality of strategic decisions as measured by subsequent performance.
Implementation example: A manufacturing company was struggling to integrate insights from different departments into coherent product improvements. They implemented a structured aggregation process that included: multi-criteria decision analysis that weighted different factors (cost, feasibility, customer impact, etc.) rather than simply counting votes; three-stage refinement cycles where promising ideas were developed through successive rounds of feedback; trained synthesis facilitators responsible for identifying patterns and connections across contributions; and a "minority report" protocol ensuring alternative perspectives were documented and considered. This approach led to more integrated solutions that addressed multiple stakeholders' needs simultaneously.
Implementation example: A professional services firm found their client co-creation sessions often went off track or ended without clear outcomes. They developed a facilitation excellence program that included: certifying internal facilitators through formal training; creating a bias mitigation toolkit with techniques for common challenges (groupthink, anchoring, etc.); establishing a "productive conflict" protocol that distinguished between idea disagreement and interpersonal conflict; implementing energy management practices including modality shifts every 30 minutes; and using visual progress dashboards to maintain momentum. These practices led to more efficient meetings, better client outcomes, and higher satisfaction scores from both employees and clients.
You can roll these out through things like focused 'Collective Intelligence Sprints' on a tricky problem, groups that share best practices ('Communities of Practice'), real-world projects with coaching ('Action Learning Projects'), leadership training, or even by tweaking your digital collaboration tools. The best way is to weave these practices into how your organization works every day.
Beyond specific practices and tools, fostering collective intelligence requires a fundamental shift in leadership mindset. Leaders who excel at harnessing group genius share several key characteristics:
Intellectual Humility: They recognize the limitations of their own knowledge and perspective. Rather than seeing their role as having all the answers, they focus on asking the right questions and creating conditions where the best ideas can emerge from anywhere.
Curiosity About Differences: They are genuinely interested in perspectives that differ from their own. They see cognitive diversity not as something to be managed or tolerated, but as a valuable resource to be leveraged. They actively seek out and explore viewpoints that challenge their thinking.
Process Orientation: They understand that how a group works together is as important as who is in the group. They invest time in designing and improving collaborative processes rather than just focusing on outcomes. They recognize that good process leads to better outcomes over time.
Comfort With Emergence: They can hold space for the messy, non-linear nature of collective intelligence. Rather than forcing premature convergence, they allow insights to emerge through interaction. They trust that properly designed group processes will lead to superior results, even when the path isn't straightforward.
Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry: They skillfully balance advocating their own views with inquiring into others' perspectives. They can strongly express their thinking while remaining genuinely open to being influenced by what they hear from others.
Leaders who embody these mindsets create environments where collective intelligence can flourish. They model the behaviors they wish to see, allocate resources to building collaborative capability, recognize and reward contributions to group intelligence, and design systems that reinforce rather than undermine collective thinking.
Developing this leadership mindset is often the most challenging—and most important—aspect of building collective intelligence. Technical practices and tools will have limited impact without leaders who truly believe in the power of group genius.
Take the Pulse: Run a Collective Intelligence Assessment (CIA) for a key team or department. See where they are now and what they could work on across the five factors.
Mix It Up: In your next big planning meeting, try one new way to bring in different views (like a pre-mortem session with assigned devil's advocate roles).
Open Up: For the next month, try starting your team meetings by asking, 'What's one small risk you took this week, and what did you learn?' See what happens!