Since the expansion of the internet, collaboration has ceased to be an organizational preference and has become a structural condition of work. The environments in which we think and decide are interdependent, opaque, and difficult to anticipate. The arrival of artificial intelligence has not simplified that landscape; it has accelerated it and raised the cost of poor thinking.

In this context, the central challenge is no longer optimizing processes, but improving the quality of judgment. Being smarter means thinking better under pressure: asking the questions that guide action when information is abundant and the answers are not obvious.

That kind of judgment does not scale individually. The usual dynamics of collaboration often erode it without the team even realizing it. Collective intelligence is not lost in major strategic decisions; it erodes through micro-behaviors that happen in real time: the attitude with which someone enters a meeting, the way people listen when disagreement emerges, how someone intervenes under pressure, or how the closing of a decision is framed or diluted.

This is where the quality of shared thinking is determined.

When complexity exceeds individual capacity, the quality of results depends on the group’s ability to think with greater precision before deciding. That capability does not emerge through cultural declarations or good intentions. It is trained.

For that reason, I focus a central part of my work on collaboration, understood as a behavioral discipline that allows teams to deploy their intelligence more effectively in a world that has already changed.

What truly matters at work is always a consequence of how we collaborate. And collaborating better is a skill that can be practiced.