Collective intelligence is an extremely common and natural phenomenon that occurs when two or more people gather in the same place, physical or virtual, to discuss a topic together. The knowledge, information, skills, and insights of each individual brain combine with those of others, creating a form of superintelligence that has the potential to transcend individual limitations and solve problems that one person alone cannot solve, or would require much greater effort to address.

This natural phenomenon and its effectiveness, however, cannot be left to chance, since not all decisions made by a group of people working together are necessarily effective or fit for purpose. Certain conditions must be in place if we truly want to maximise a group’s collective intelligence and significantly increase the likelihood of generating ideas and solutions that solve the problem once and for all and remain sustainable over time. The following three conditions, in my opinion, are fundamental:

1. Clarity and alignment on the topic on which the group is called upon or wishes to make decisions.
2. Consideration of the needs and ambitions of stakeholders who will not only be impacted by the group’s decisions but also have the power to broaden or limit the group’s scope of action on the topic under discussion.
3. Each group member’s willingness to give their best and actively contribute to the discussion by sharing their knowledge, inspiration, and ideas without barriers, fear, or arrogance.

The first condition, or rather, the lack of it, is one of the primary causes of frustration in the groups I’ve been fortunate enough to work with over the years as a consultant and facilitator. What seems obvious in the perception of the manager or team members themselves (“After all, we’ve been talking about this topic for six months, of course we agree on its meaning!”) quickly clashes with reality once I start asking simple questions such as, “What exactly does this topic mean to you?”. I often find myself with as many definitions as there are people present. I’m not talking about completely discordant and contradictory definitions, but rather nuances that can potentially waste a lot of energy in the group and lead to misunderstandings that ultimately result in ineffective action plans.

For example, if a team’s goal is to create better collaboration with Department X, it is crucial to establish what the team actually means by “better collaboration.” Are they referring to greater information and knowledge sharing, or to a redistribution of tasks? Does the team expect Department X to follow through more reliably on its commitments, or simply to gain a better understanding of the team’s challenges? Or perhaps all of these elements combined? If we expect the team to be creative and generate ideas to improve collaboration with Department X, we must clearly define what those ideas are intended to accomplish. Therefore, it is worth investing time in exploring the topic and its key terms in order to arrive at a shared definition.

The second condition is what makes the difference between an action plan that stakeholders enthusiastically embrace and an action plan that the team must later “sell,” without any certainty of acceptance. Considering the needs and ambitions of the most important stakeholders related to the topic allows the team to generate ideas that address those needs and ambitions. If we include the team itself among the stakeholders, we gain a complete picture of what must be incorporated into the action plan so that the envisioned solutions can truly solve the problem and benefit everyone affected by the topic in question. For any stakeholder, it is far easier to say yes and take action when the action plan meets at least one of their fundamental needs. This is why conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis and seeking ideas that satisfy as many key stakeholder needs as possible is strongly advisable.

The first two conditions, however, are not sufficient on their own to activate a group’s collective intelligence and produce the best possible results. Every group member, including the manager, must feel empowered and willing to actively contribute to the discussion by sharing knowledge, inspiration, and ideas without fear of being judged, ignored, or belittled. Time, attention, and energy must therefore be dedicated to creating a working climate in which psychological safety is a reality. Only when such a climate truly exists can we hope to capitalise on the human richness present around the discussion table. At this point, individual responsibility of each group member makes the real difference, because feeling empowered alone is not enough.

Each of us must be willing to participate fully and give our best toward achieving a common goal while respecting and valuing other group members. Psychological safety is not something that is simply granted by those in positions of authority. It is something the group builds together, interaction by interaction. It is the result of the conscious and active commitment of each individual. How do I express my ideas? How do I respond to my colleagues’ contributions? How do I ensure I do not monopolise speaking time or attention? What do I do to encourage others to share their perspectives? Having clear behavioural guidelines for being an active, responsible, and self-aware participant is not a given. In my opinion, this kind of reflection must be part of any serious attempt by a team, or an organisation, to create the conditions in which group discussions and meetings become genuine opportunities to move beyond the obvious and predictable in order to find solutions that truly convince both ourselves and others.