New research is shedding light on why some teams gel quickly while others struggle, even when they have the same skills and resources. The study examines how the structure of a group’s communication network can influence a shared social identity and, in turn, performance.
The work, led by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, was published in the journal Small Group Research. It focuses on two network features that are common in organizations: density, meaning how many connections exist among members, and centralization, meaning how concentrated communication is around one or a few people.
When more connections can backfire
The researchers argue that communication structures affect more than information flow. They can also shift team psychology by changing how strongly members feel part of a common in-group.
In a laboratory experiment, 66 groups of four participants completed a software development task while communicating through different network setups. The study tested how varying density and centralization changed both shared identity and results on the task.
The findings suggest dense networks were most beneficial when communication was less centralized. When connections were spread more evenly across members, teams were more likely to form a shared social identity and perform better.
Why centralization changes group dynamics
When networks were highly centralized, adding more ties did not deliver the same gains. The researchers report that bigger differences in who is connected to whom can weaken the sense of shared identity, which can hurt coordination and knowledge sharing.
The analysis also found that shared social identity helped explain the link between network structure and performance. In other words, the communication network appeared to affect outcomes partly by shaping whether members felt they belonged to the same team.
Implications for managers and team leaders
For managers, the research suggests that encouraging more interaction is not automatically helpful if it increases communication imbalances. Leaders may need to pay attention to whether participation is broadly distributed or routed through a small set of central players.
The authors note limits to how widely the results can be applied, pointing to the small-group setting and tasks requiring interdependence. They also caution that findings may be most relevant when members can accurately perceive their team’s communication patterns.
Leave a Reply