.svg)
Connect With David
Two sides of the same work: thought leadership at DavidMollison.com, organisational practice at Illumiaid.com.
July 14, 2025
We've got this backwards.
Everywhere I look, organisations are doubling down on intellect. More data. Better analysis. Smarter frameworks. And now AI that can out-think us on pretty much everything.
But here's what I've noticed after two decades of watching teams succeed and fail: the breakthrough moments never come from having more information. They come from seeing what was always there.
That's the difference between intellect and insight. And it's why some teams can turn everything around in a single conversation while others stay stuck despite having all the right answers.
Don't get me wrong—intellect is important. It accumulates knowledge, analyses patterns, builds models, optimises processes. AI does this brilliantly now, and it's only getting better.
But intellect has limits. It can only work with what's already known. It can rearrange existing information, but it can't see what's missing. It can solve problems, but it can't question whether those problems are worth solving.
I've sat in countless strategy sessions where teams had all the data, perfect analysis, and logical frameworks. Yet somehow, nothing moved. Because having the right information isn't the same as knowing what to do with it.
I remember one leadership team that had been wrestling with a cultural transformation for months. They had engagement surveys, change management plans, communication strategies—everything mapped out perfectly. But nothing was shifting.
Then someone said, "What if we're trying to change the wrong thing?"
That single question opened up a completely different conversation. They realised they weren't dealing with a culture problem—they were dealing with a trust problem. And trust can't be programmed or processed. It has to be rebuilt through presence and consistency.
One insight. Everything changed.
Here's the thing about insight: it's uncomfortable. It often reveals that our carefully constructed plans are missing the point.
I've been there myself—sitting in meetings where I could feel something was off, but kept pushing the analysis because it felt safer than admitting we might be solving the wrong problem entirely.
Intellect feels controllable. We can measure it, improve it incrementally, present it in slides. Insight is messier. It emerges when we stop trying so hard to figure things out and start paying attention to what's actually happening.
You can't force insight, but you can create conditions where it's more likely to emerge.
First, you have to slow down long enough to actually think. Most teams are so busy executing that they never create space for anything new to surface.
Second, you have to question your assumptions. The insight that changes everything is usually hiding underneath something you've been taking for granted.
And finally, you have to act on it when it shows up. Insight without action is just interesting conversation.
This is where humans have a permanent advantage. AI can process infinite amounts of information, but it can't have an insight that transforms how we see the problem itself.
AI can tell you what the data says. It can't tell you what the data is missing. It can optimise for efficiency, but it can't question whether efficiency is the right goal.
The teams that master this—that create space for insight to emerge and then act on it quickly—will run circles around those still trying to out-think their problems.
Intellect is sufficient for solving known problems. Insight is what you need when the problems themselves are changing.
And in the end, intellect optimises. Insight moves.
