Why Smart People Don’t Always Make Smart Teams

Different perspectives can help teams make better decisions. They can also make collaboration harder. Matilda Olsson, co-founder of CIBoost, explores what it takes to turn individual knowledge into collective intelligence.

People can look at the same problem and see different things. One recognizes a risk. Another questions an assumption. A third sees a possibility the others have missed.

A team can draw on all of those perspectives. Yet having them in the room is only the beginning.

“The more different we are, the greater our potential to complement each other. But it is also harder to collaborate,” says Matilda. “We find it easier to work with people who think and communicate like we do.”

Collective intelligence, Matilda explains, is about how well a team uses its members’ knowledge, experience, and perspectives to solve problems together.

Listening before the idea is fully formed

When someone explains a complex idea, there is often more to their thinking than they can put into words. A colleague can pick apart what is missing or ask questions that help make the reasoning clearer.

“In teams with high collective intelligence, people listen to understand and help each other develop their thinking”, says Matilda. “If I am looking for holes in your argument, I can usually find them before you have had a chance to explain what you really mean.”

These teams also make room for exchanges across the whole group. When discussion revolves around just a few people, the team has less opportunity to draw on what everyone else knows.

Valuable perspectives can get lost when people challenge an idea before they have understood the thinking behind it.

The questions people hesitate to ask

Some contributions never enter the discussion at all.

Questioning a plan, admitting a mistake, or saying “I don’t understand” can feel risky. People consider how they will be perceived and what speaking up might mean for their standing in the group.

“Teams can end up talking about everything except what they really need to address,” Matilda says. “The difficult questions are often the ones that involve a personal risk.”

This is where trust affects the quality of a team’s thinking. An unspoken concern cannot be examined. A mistake nobody acknowledges cannot inform the next decision.

People need enough confidence in their relationships to disagree about the work. They also need to understand how their colleagues respond. A direct challenge that one person welcomes may cause another to withdraw.

“Understanding who you are working with makes it easier to communicate in ways that strengthen collaboration,” Matilda says. “The more trust there is, the better equipped people are to handle the moments when it gets uncomfortable.”

It also matters what people do beyond the discussion. Matilda emphasizes the willingness to take responsibility for the team’s progress: helping a colleague, responding when something changes, and stepping in where needed. Collective intelligence depends on people acting in the group’s interest as well as contributing their own knowledge.

The plan was made when you knew least

Even a team that exchanges ideas openly can lose its shared understanding of the work.

At the beginning of a project, people agree on objectives, roles, and responsibilities. As they work, they learn more. New constraints emerge. The problem becomes clearer.

But the initial agreement can remain untouched.

“We define the goal and divide the work at the point when we know the least.”

“Then we often fail to revisit those decisions as our understanding grows,” Matilda says.

People may absorb new information individually without discussing what it means for the team. Over time, they can begin working from different assumptions about the same assignment.

Are they still solving the right problem? Do they agree on what has changed? Does the division of work still make sense?

A shared understanding needs to evolve alongside the work. Otherwise, capable people can put considerable effort into tasks that no longer fit together.

Why the conversation rarely happens

One of the biggest challenges in developing and maintaining collective intelligence is getting teams to regularly examine how they work together.

There is always another deadline or another problem to solve. Discussing collaboration can feel less urgent than delivering the work, even when the way people collaborate is affecting that delivery.

“Sports teams review what happened between matches. In working life, the pressure to move on to the next assignment can leave little room to examine how the team worked together,” Matilda says. “Those conversations need to be built into the way a team works.”

Different teams need to examine different things. One may lack a shared understanding of the goal. Another may struggle to raise concerns, handle disagreements, or support each other when the pressure increases.

Reviewing the result is only part of the learning. Teams also need to look at how they worked together: did they listen to understand, ask for help when they needed it, and step in when a colleague needed support? Could they disagree openly, and what happened when they did?

These conversations help teams identify what strengthened their collaboration, what got in the way, and what to do differently next time.

About CIBoost

CIBoost is a digital platform rooted in research at the Stockholm School of Economics. Through assessments and guided exercises, it helps teams strengthen their collaboration and collective intelligence. CIBoost won the innovation award at the Swedish Learning Awards 2026, where the jury highlighted its scientific foundation and scalable approach to team development.