Density, centralization play roles in dynamic of groups' work

Research has predominantly analyzed the formation of social identity as driven by members belonging to the same categories based on prominent characteristics, such as gender, race, or ethnicity. Less common are studies on recognizing similarity within groups as the basis for forming shared social identities.

In a new study, researchers explored how the characteristics of communication networks in groups (i.e., density and centralization) affected the development of shared social identity and, as a result, group performance. The study’s findings can help managers and other business leaders develop strategies to enhance the performance of their teams.

What the researchers say: “We argue that the structure of a group’s communication network affects a group’s performance, not only by influencing how the group exchanges information, but also by altering the psychological processes of its members, namely the extent to which they share a social identity,” explained the study’s co-author. “Groups whose members share a social identity are likely to share knowledge and collaborate, which typically results in better performance.”

In the business world, much work gets done by groups, and communication is required to coordinate the interdependent activities of group members. In this study, researchers sought to determine whether and how communication networks affect the extent to which members share a social identity.

In their work, the researchers theorized that two dimensions of a group’s communication network - density (the ratio of ties among group members to the number of possible ties) and centralization (the extent to which communication ties are concentrated in one or a few members) - interact to affect the extent to which group members share an identity. They manipulated the density and centralization of communication networks in a lab experiment.

In their experiment, 66 groups of four participants worked together on a software development task, communicating in different communication networks. Participants were recruited through a public pool at a mid-Atlantic US university.

Density had a more positive effect on a shared social identity and group performance when networks were less centralized, which led to more similar patterns of connections among members, than when networks were more centralized, the study found. Shared social identity mediated or accounted for the effect of the network on group performance.

Based on these findings, the study’s authors suggest that groups with networks that lead to more differences in members’ links to each other have lower shared social identity and harms its performance. Thus, simply increasing the number of communication ties within a group may not help boost performance if the additional ties increase differences between members. As a result, a leader may need to be aware of a group’s existing structure when encouraging more interaction or participation.

“Our findings can help group leaders and managers be better equipped to improve group performance,” the researchers said. “Our work advances understanding of how networks can have psychological effects on groups and demonstrates that sometimes more network ties can tear a team further apart.”

My take: We have long said that humans collaborate better with those that they have a lot in common with.

I would argue that that commonality increases communication, because it is in our DNA to trust those that we communicate with frequently. In fact, it’s a two-way street. Once we begin to communicate, we start to find things out - beliefs, ideas, customs, genetics, experiences, background - that we have in common. The more we find, the closer we bond and trust, the more we communicate.

Alternatively, the less commonality we have, the less we’ll communicate and the harder it’ll be to collaborate.