How to Use Collective Wisdom

Diverse teams are powerful, but only if they’re designed to be. Just putting different people together isn’t enough. What I’ve learned over 11+ years is that true  🧠 Collective Intelligence only emerges when diversity is intentionally activated. 🖌 My Blueprint to unlock it: 🔹 Cognitive diversity It’s about bringing different thinking styles. Teams that embrace divergent ways of solving problems uncover creative solutions that others miss. 🔹 Demographic Diversity The presence of different intersectional identities and lived experiences creates a richer understanding of potential blind spots and unmet needs. 🔹 Experiential Diversity Diverse career paths and life stories equip teams with practical insights that can cut through “tried-and-true” methods that often fail in complex, changing environments. 🔹 Psychological Safety This is the game-changer. Without it, diversity backfires. High-performing teams create a “safe container” where everyone—from the quiet thinkers to the bold disruptors—can voice their ideas without fear. 🔹 Inclusive Decision-Making Diversity is wasted if decisions are still made by the loudest voice in the room. Structured inclusion ensures that varied perspectives aren’t just heard but drive the direction forward. The result? 1️⃣ Faster, smarter decisions: diverse insights reduce blind spots and increase confidence in strategic choices, helping leaders respond swiftly to market changes. 2️⃣ Increased innovation and agility: aligned teams leverage diverse perspectives to solve complex problems creatively and adapt to new challenges with resilience. 3️⃣ Stronger engagement and retention: when teams feel psychologically safe and included, they’re more committed and motivated. This translates to lower turnover and higher morale. The path to unlocking your team’s full potential starts with aligning on the right elements—diversity, psychological safety, and inclusion in decisions. 🤔 P.S. Where is your team on the path to collective intelligence—and what’s your next step?

Smart Teams Make You Stronger. Having talented people on your team isn't something to fear - it helps everyone succeed. As a second-line manager at just 27 years old, I learned this firsthand. Leading a growing team in a fast growing industry. meant hiring people who were more experienced and smarter than me, including direct reports 8-10 years my senior. What seemed intimidating at first actually accelerated my leadership growth. That experience taught me a crucial lesson: surrounding yourself with brilliant minds isn't a threat—it's your greatest advantage. 5 Ways to Embrace Team Diversity 1️⃣ Value Different Experience Levels → Learn from seasoned perspectives: My older team members brought wisdom from previous roles I hadn't encountered yet → Balance fresh thinking with proven methods: New ideas work best when combined with tested approaches 2️⃣ Recognize Your True Role as Leader → Focus on removing obstacles: I learned my job wasn't to be the expert, but to clear paths for the experts → Build connections between specialists: Help team members with different skills collaborate effectively → Set clear vision, then step back: Define what success looks like, then let your talented team find the best path 3️⃣ Make Space for Better Ideas Practice active listening: The best solutions often came when I stopped talking and truly hear my team Credit generously: Publicly acknowledge when someone's idea outshines yours Ask more questions, give fewer answers: "What do you think we should do?" became my most powerful phrase 4️⃣ Build Confidence Through Trust → Delegate meaningful work: Show trust by giving important tasks to those with the skills to excel → Accept different approaches: I found team members often reached better outcomes when using their own methods → Share the spotlight: Invite team members to present their work directly to higher management 5️⃣ Embrace the Growth Mindset → Admit what you don't know: Saying "I need your expertise here" strengthened rather than weakened my leadership → Measure success by team outcomes: I learned that my growth as a leader should be judged by our collective achievement 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 Working with team members smarter and more experienced than me wasn't just good for the organization—it dramatically accelerated my own leadership development. What initially felt uncomfortable became my greatest competitive advantage. Research backs this up: teams with varied skills and experience are 35% more likely to outperform their competitors. That early experience taught me the most valuable leadership lesson: surround yourself with exceptional talent, embrace their strengths, and you'll all rise together. Ask yourself: Would you hire someone whose brilliance might intimidate you? Your answer reveals whether you're ready for truly exceptional leadership. ♻️ Share this to help leaders level up. Follow Adeline Tiah 謝善嫻 for content on leadership and future of work.

An insight from my Managing Groups & Teams class at Stanford I found extremely fascinating: 👉 A team almost always performs worse than its best member individually. Imagine 4 people give a test: A scores 99 B scores 90 C scores 80 D scores 70 Now if all 4 take the test together, you’d expect a near-perfect score (because you have an 'expert' on the team). But in reality? You often get ~85 – an average, not the maximum. This happens because of regression to the mean (stats nerds gather! :P) and some very human dynamics: ▪️ The “expert” loses confidence when others disagree (“maybe I’m wrong”). ▪️ Pressure silences the expert (“what if I’m wrong and they’re right?”). ▪️ Conformity bias – it feels easier to blend in than to stand apart. ▪️ Diffusion of responsibility – when everyone owns the answer, no one fully owns it. ▪️ Over-deliberation – discussion eats into clarity, introducing doubt where there was certainty. So how do you avoid this? 💡 Acknowledge expertise in the room. If you aren’t the expert, talk less, listen more. 💡 As the expert, explain your reasoning clearly and with humility – not just “I know this,” but why. 💡 Leaders set the tone. Create space for the expert to share, without fear of being “that person who always knows best.” 💡 Use structured decision-making. For example, take individual inputs first, then discuss. This preserves independent judgment before the group effect kicks in. We actually did an exercise on this – working with a military expert on surviving a military-style drill. Our team was one of the rare groups that outperformed even the expert’s solo score. That felt like magic – but it was really method + discipline + respect for expertise. A powerful reminder: the wisdom of crowds works only when individuals bring their best judgment forward before the crowd dilutes it.

When your team has better ideas than you As a leader, there's nothing quite like the humbling experience of having your ideas gently (or not so gently) dismantled by your team. I encourage my team to challenge the status quo—even if it means questioning my ideas (which they enjoy a bit too much!). But hey, who doesn't love a good reality check over their morning coffee? For years, leadership was associated with being the person in the room with all the answers. But let's be honest—no one has all the answers, not even the person who swears they know the secret ingredient in their grandmother's legendary chili (it's cinnamon, by the way). Leadership expert Jim Collins, in his book Good to Great, emphasizes the importance of "Level 5 Leaders" who display humility & empower others to contribute. Research by Anita Woolley at CMU suggests that collective intelligence—a group's ability to perform a wide variety of tasks—is not determined by the smartest individual but by how well the group works together. In other words, a team that communicates effectively & values everyone's input can outperform groups that don't. Allowing your team to question you isn't just about humility (though it does keep the ego in check). It fosters innovation. Google's famous "20% time" policy encourages employees to spend a portion of their time on projects they are passionate about, leading to products like Gmail & AdSense. Sure, it stings a little when your team pokes holes in your plan, but consider this: Would you rather find out the flaws now or after your project has taken a nosedive? Encouraging open dialogue creates a safety net where ideas can be tested & improved upon. Plus, watching your team gleefully deconstruct your proposal can be oddly entertaining—like watching a pack of wolves tackle a particularly feisty piece of meat. How do you cultivate a team that challenges you? • Create a safe environment: Make it clear that all ideas are welcome, even those that contradict yours. Maybe avoid doing this before your second cup of coffee. • Ask open-ended questions: Instead of "Do you agree?" try "What are your thoughts on this proposal?" This opens the floor for discussion rather than simple yes-or-no answers. • Embrace the "yes, &..." approach: This technique from improv comedy encourages building on ideas rather than shutting them down. It also makes meetings feel more like a fun game than a tedious obligation. • Celebrate the challengers: Recognize & reward those who dare to speak up. This reinforces the behavior & makes others more likely to join in. Just don't let it go to their heads—they might start challenging you on your choice of tie. By fostering an environment where challenging the status quo is not just allowed but encouraged, you unlock the full potential of your team's collective intelligence. Plus, you get the added bonus of keeping yourself humble—& isn't that what leadership is all about? #Leadership #Management #Ideas #Teamwork

I wanted to have a community of leaders to bounce ideas and insights off of.  This group had to be diverse in thought – a hedge fund owner, a conversative economist, and futurist, a technology entrepreneur, and a pollster.  That was hard to do, so I built my own board of advisors.  In AI. Here’s how I built/use mine. Each “member” is modeled after an industry leader that I respect – very specific, public personas.  I train it with their speeches, posts, TED talks, etc... Then I go and ask them tough questions, then let them debate. While equal parts fascinating and entertaining, the conversations get surprisingly real, from competing perspectives and occasional brilliant tangents that spark new ideas entirely. In other words, it’s a perfect simulation of collaboration. Training multiple AI “personas” isn’t about replacing human judgment. It’s about building synthetic diversity of thought to add focused rigor to your brainstorming.   I prompt it in different ways to encourage varied lines of thinking (e.g. visionary vs. operator, and see how each one pushes your own ideas further).  I am also never looking for the answer.  Instead I am looking for the perspectives.  So my results are always read like a Supreme Court ruling with debates, Majority and Dissenting opinions.  Backed by sourced facts and some opinions (and sure, maybe some hallucinations – but that’s good for creativity!) A few ways to use this in practice? 1.  Train GPTs for very specific use cases. The best GPT is the one you have developed for your exact intended purpose. 2.  Let your GPT (or a whole board full) play devil’s advocate with your ideas. Always get a colleague to weigh in, too.   3. Prototype perspectives before you spend a dollar in the market. I’ve been using this approach to sharpen my decision-making and test ideas faster. Let me know what you think if you give it a try (and if you have any prompts to recommend my way, please do!)

A problem I'm seeing with scaling companies: every department has its own narrative about the customer. Ask 10 people at those companies what customers really want. You'll get 10 different answers. Everyone's working incredibly hard in slightly different directions. Why does this happen? It's not incompetence. It's not poor communication. It's something deeper. Each team builds intuition from different data points. Sales talks to prospects who didn't buy. Support talks to users who are struggling. Product talks to power users. Marketing looks at attribution data. They're all seeing real truths. Just different slices of truth. Aaron Cannon (co-founder of Outset) gave this problem a name during our Supra Insider conversation: the collective intuition gap. Here's what changes when build collective intuition at your company: Sales knows exactly what emotional outcome they're selling. Marketing speaks the actual language customers use. Product builds features that ladder up to real human needs. Support understands the deeper context behind every ticket. Here's Aaron's framework for building collective intuition: 1. Ask the right questions together "Framing the questions is a really hard thing to do and is underrated," Aaron said. Don't let each team ask their own questions. Align on what you actually need to know. 2. Create shared exposure to raw insights Don't just share reports. Share actual customer voices. When everyone hears the same customer struggle firsthand, mental models start to converge. 3. Build a unified narrative "Companies need a narrative of why and what the evidence is." One story, not five different versions. Research teams become orchestrators of this shared understanding. 4. Decide: Distributed or centralized intuition?** Some companies need different teams to deeply understand different user segments. Others need everyone aligned on the same core insights. Pick intentionally. AI makes this both harder and easier. Harder because teams can move faster in wrong directions. Easier because we can finally scale deep understanding across entire organizations.

Years ago at Google, candidates would have to sit through 15–25 interviews before they were hired. But eventually their People Analytics team crunched the data and slashed it down to four. Why? As Laszlo Bock put it, “[we] found that four interviews were enough to predict whether or not we should hire someone with 86 percent confidence. Every additional interviewer after the fourth added only 1 percent more predictive power.” Their study revealed another interesting nugget: nobody at the company could do better than the aggregated wisdom of four interviewers.  In other words, no single manager—no matter how experienced—outperformed the group. That’s collective intelligence in action. And collective intelligence is exactly what modern work demands. Unlike linear, logical work, creativity is nonlinear. You can’t just schedule your next breakthrough between 2:00–2:30 PM. At the same time, the problems we work on are increasingly complex systems problems. We need more than one brain to solve complex, creative problems. So how do you harness the group without turning it into groupthink? Researchers across domains keep finding the same thing. For groups to be smart, a few conditions have to be true: - Each person must be informed enough to have a better-than-50/50 shot of being right. (That’s the core of Condorcet’s Jury Theorem.)  - The group needs cognitive diversity—different mental models, not just different demographics. As one research study showed, under the right conditions “diversity trumps ability.”  - People must think independently. As one PNAS paper put it, “even mild social influence can undermine the wisdom of [the] crowd effect.”  - Inputs should be as unbiased as possible. The smartest groups have both the right people and the right group norms. They hire knowledgeable people and protect independent thinking before opinions collide. They carefully curate groups to ensure cognitive diversity and create fair norms for decision making. Strategies like nominal brainstorming, private rankings, and written rationales prevent early voices from anchoring the group, letting you aggregate insights more effectively. If Google’s data says a calibrated group beats your most seasoned individual, what could your team ship if you designed for collective intelligence on purpose? What’s one ritual you use to keep ideas independent before discussion starts? #Collective Intelligence #Innovation #TalentManagement #DecisionMaking 

Your expertise might be dimming your best thinkers. Here's how to spark their brilliance instead: As leaders, we often face a choice: Do we fortify the walls of our expertise, or do we build bridges to new possibilities? As an executive coach, I've witnessed this countless times: The moment a leader shifts from "I know the answer" to "What might we discover together?" the entire team dynamic transforms. People who rarely spoke up begin sharing innovative solutions. Long-standing problems suddenly have fresh angles. This simple change in approach activates the collective intelligence and experience of the whole team. While your expertise got you here, staying curious will take you further. Every time you think you have the answer, pause. Your team has insights you haven't considered and solutions you can't see alone. Here are 3 practical ways to make this shift: 1. Replace your solution statements with genuine questions in your next team meeting. Instead of "Here's what we should do," try "What approaches haven't we considered yet?" 2. When a challenge arises, pause before sharing your expertise. Instead of "In my previous role, I solved this by..." ask: "What perspectives am I missing? What would someone with fresh eyes see here?" 3. Create space for contagious curiosity. When team members bring ideas, respond with genuine interest rather than immediate guidance. "Tell me more about how you came to that insight" sparks deeper exploration than "Here's what I'd suggest instead." Watch how these simple shifts ignite fresh thinking and bring in the quieter voices. 𝗥𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿: Your expertise isn't a destination – it's a launch pad for collective discovery. 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: How might you use your knowledge not to shine, but to spark brilliance in others today? ♻️Repost if you believe your expertise should spark curiosity, not silence it. ➕Follow Michelle Awuku-Tatum for more insights on leadership and team dynamics.

Recognize any of these moments on your team? 🃏 Estimation Anchors A senior developer says, “This looks like a 13 to me,” before the team votes. Suddenly, most people vote 13—even if they were thinking 5 or 8. 👔 Stakeholder Influence A high-ranking stakeholder shares a preferred direction at the start of a brainstorming session. The group’s ideas start mirroring that direction—even if better ideas were possible. 📊 Retro Feedback The first person shares, “Last Sprint went really well!” and suddenly everyone else shares positive comments—even if they had concerns. That’s anchoring bias in action. The solution? Simultaneous reveal. ✅ Everyone writes their idea, number, or vote. ✅ Then… everyone shows at once. This works beautifully with: ➡️ Sticky notes on a wall (flipped over together) ➡️ Chatterfall (online chat where everyone hits enter at the same time) ➡️ Silent brainstorms followed by reveal ➡️ Planning Poker 🔄 How it works: ✅ Prevents bias from early voices ✅ Gives each person an equal footing ✅ Reveals divergence before you drift into false alignment 🔍 Why it works (the real  why): Because true collaboration means hearing all the voices, not just the loudest. Simultaneous reveal gives space to the unheard, the unsure, the outliers. It reflects a principle from Arnold Mindell’s Deep Democracy: “The wisdom of a group lives not just in the majority, but in the margins.” It’s not just about fairer votes. It’s about creating a container where difference is welcomed, not overwritten. 🦍 Facilitators don’t drive consensus—they create clarity through contrast. Want real collaboration? Don’t just ask for opinions—design the moment they show up. #FacilitationFriday #DeepDemocracy #AgileFacilitation #ScrumMasterTools #GorillaMoments

Of all my McKinsey skills, the most valuable turns out to be the least sexy: Facilitation. When I started my consulting practice, everyone told me to specialize. Pick an industry. Pick a function. I resisted. Instead, I asked clients what they actually needed most from me. The answer surprised me: They needed me to 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 their executive team conversations. Facilitation hardly sounds like a competitive advantage. Yet, it makes all the difference. — It boils down to this: Collective intelligence isn't about having the smartest people in the room. It's about how those people interact. And “super-facilitators” are the key to driving those interactions. Consider NBA point guard Chris Paul. Four times he's joined a new team, and each time that team posted its best record ever within two years. No other player has had that kind of impact. He's not just talented. He's a super-facilitator who orchestrates roles, enables smooth interactions, and builds trust. He makes everyone around him better. — Don’t have a natural super-facilitator on your team? Good news: this is learnable. Here are three moves that change how your team thinks together: 1 → Map perspectives before the meeting Spend 15 minutes imagining how each person will view the agenda based on their role and current pressures. The CFO sees risk. The head of sales sees revenue impact. The COO sees operational complexity. You're building a mental map of how different people will experience the same discussion. That map changes everything. You anticipate resistance. You surface concerns proactively. You create space for perspectives that might otherwise get steamrolled. 2 → Make people feel seen Do 10-minute check-ins with 2-3 people whose perspectives you least understand. Not to pre-negotiate. Not to build alliances. Just to make them feel understood. When people see their strengths reflected back, they show up differently. They take risks. They contribute more generously. Those 10 minutes compound into transformed group dynamics. 3 → Run one "chess clock" meeting Dedicate your next meeting to balancing airtime. Track who's talking and for how long. When someone's at 3+ minutes, redirect: "That's valuable - let's hear from others." You’ll be stunned at the imbalance you uncover. Once you see it, you can fix it. — Most executive teams don't need more analysis or frameworks. They need better conditions to 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. That's what facilitation creates. Maybe that makes it the sexiest skill after all. — Tell me about a meeting that should have been a disaster but someone pulled it back. What did they actually 𝘥𝘰?