COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE: THE TRANSFORMATIVE ENERGY IN ORGANIZATIONS

 

Daniel Innerarity, in his book “A Theory of Complex Democracy” [1], points out that “to truly understand what we mean when we talk about collective intelligence, the first thing we must do is distinguish between individual knowledge and collective knowledge.”

“What organizations and society do is generate knowledge that is superior to the sum of the members who compose them.” It is something more than a simple aggregation. It is emergent knowledge that is born from interaction, from relationship, and from dialogue. This is, in fact, one of the central principles of complexity science: the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Organizations are complex systems, and therefore cannot be understood as a simple aggregate of individuals. They are living spaces, where the quality of relationships —the organizational culture— determines the capacity to create shared knowledge. When we talk about organizations, we are not referring only to companies or entities, but also to spaces of collaboration between different institutions or groups of people working together to build something greater than themselves.

Innerarity also points out that “while individual knowledge is a private matter, the framework to carry out collective intelligence is a genuinely political task.” This implies thinking about the type of knowledge we want to generate and the frameworks that will facilitate its emergence. It is not only about accumulating information, but about designing spaces where it can flow, transform, and generate shared knowledge.

That is why “it is unreasonable to place excessive attention on individual properties and to rely too much on the virtues of individual people or institutions — we must focus primarily on the interactions of their members.” What matters, Innerarity emphasizes, is the quality of the interactions. What happens between people. And here we fully enter the relational culture: the way we listen to each other, recognize each other, and trust one another.

We all know that we do not relate to everyone in the same way. There are bonds that generate trust and spaces that encourage deeper and more creative conversations. When this happens, ideas flow better, decisions are made with greater wisdom, and processes accelerate without losing quality. It is a matter of efficiency, yes, but also of meaning.
Returning to the concept of collective intelligence, we can define it as the capacity of a group to share knowledge, learn collectively, and make decisions more creatively and effectively than they would individually.

This intelligence emerges from collaboration, communication, and trust among its members, and it is key to adapting to change, innovating, and achieving common goals. It also arises, however, from seeing the other as someone who can contribute, who can expand our mental framework.

Pierre Lévy, Canadian philosopher and sociologist, defined it as “an intelligence distributed everywhere, constantly valued, coordinated in real time, that leads to an effective mobilization of competences.”

Thus, we could say that collective intelligence would be the energy that should flow in organizational models aspiring to democratic governance.
Because this type of model is the one that provides governance frameworks to incorporate the voices of the different stakeholder groups and translate them into attitudes, norms, and practices that express empowerment and the real participation of the people who are part of them.

From my experience, one of the great challenges to activating collective intelligence is the sincere recognition of different voices. We have no doubt that diversity is a source of richness, but we also know it can be a source of discomfort. If we want to build collective knowledge, we will need to welcome and integrate different points of view, born from different experiences, knowledge, needs, and visions. We will need to make room for what at first does not fit us and may even shake us. We will need to ensure that different voices are not ignored.

However, I share with you that when we can do so, the result we achieve makes a lot of sense — more than we would have imagined individually.

We will have to learn to listen to and understand the silences in conversations, and to feel their emotions. As orchestra conductor Alberto Álvarez-Calero said: “those who do not listen to your silences will not understand your words either.” [2]

If we truly want to move towards participatory organizational models where the energy of collective intelligence is generated and flows, these are some of the nuances we will need to keep in mind.

Because building democratic organizational models implies recognizing that which is not seen, the deep democracy[3] that seeks to transform from the roots.

 

Reflection inspired by uncomfortable conversations that were important to listen to and keep in mind…

 

---

[1] Innerarity, D. (2019). Una teoría de la democracia compleja. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg.

[2] https://www.lavanguardia.com/lacontra/20210710/7590680/escucha-tus-silencios-entendera-tus-palabras.html

 [3] Mindell, A. (2015). La Democracia Profunda de los Foros Abiertos: Pasos prácticos para la prevención y resolución de conflictos familiares, laborales y mundiales (Spanish Edition). Deep Democracy Exchange.