FBlog

Business

Have you got the C Factor?

by Tom Adams on Oct 6, 2010

c on wallCan group intelligence be measured like individual intelligence? A recent peer reviewed study in Science Magazine has found experimental evidence for the existence of collective intelligence in groups: something they call the ‘c factor’. Not only does it not depend on the levels of intelligence in individual group members, but apparently softer factors like social sensitivity – how well individuals relate to each other and create space for every member to contribute – are much more important drivers of how smart the group is. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, women were more likely to exhibit this social sensitivity than men in the study.

Given how much time we all spend working in groups and picking teams to solve problems (probably based largely on how ‘smart’ the individuals are), this has some significant implications for business. Not least that we might be able to make organisations smarter by changing the way our existing people work together.

This is particularly important when we start to consider the use of collaborative technology to set or solve creative and business problems. When we recruit community members for co-creation exercises – to devise a new product or service, or to work together to find an answer like the cure for Malaria – we need to consider the c factor and individual social sensitivity as much as IQ. As well as focusing on how to create space for everyone to make a contribution.

In fact, if it’s easier to change collective intelligence than individual intelligence, and we are able to engineer more effective collaboration through social technologies, it might actually make sense to increase the amount of investment we make in this method of working – inside and outside organizations.

In his book ‘Group Genius’ Keith Sawyer – one of the world’s leading researchers into creativity – argues that real genius and creativity comes from groups of people working together over time, not (only) a random spark of inspiration from a brilliant mind. He talks about ‘collaborative webs’ underpinning many of the greatest innovations from the development of Monopoly to Morse code and even the Wright Brother’s maiden flight.

It’s no coincidence that FutureBrand’s brand strategy and innovation processes seamlessly integrate social technologies to enable this kind of collaboration. We’ve known for some time that this helps to create consensus, efficiency and better ideas. Now science tells us that we’ve had the c factor all along.

Tags:         

Join the Discussion

  • chris nurko - Oct 8, 2010

    I think the danger and counter to ‘C’ factor is the ‘M’ factor. Mediocrity. Sometimes collective intelligence and ideas can get watered down…by the ‘committee’ or ‘over-consensus’ approach. One thing that is useful to keep in mind is that once an forms..and others help to build it the originator must never lose sight of why and what about the idea is so strong and compelling. In science, collective intelligence is wonderful for pooling brains and data for complex thinking, formulas and analysis. In branding it should be in service of either a) identifying the problem (scoping) or b) brainstorming ideas for application of a solution, or a solution for a problem. When collective intelligence is mistaken for or propsed as collective design, ideation or engineering..I am afraid it all goes horribly wrong. The ‘c’ factor is vital as companies search for new ideas and particularly across the web, this brings diverse minds and expertise together. If a firm truly embraces collective intelligence, it requires strong systems and moderation to ensure it thrives and delivers the right results. One should never mistake the inclusion and participation for being the answer without a strong strategic understanding, moderation and analysis to accompany and deploy the ideas created.

FutureBrand is part of McCann Worldgroup, the official marketing services provider for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

www.interpublic.com