Most research on social identity has focused on how people form a sense of “us” by belonging to the same broad categories, such as gender, race, or ethnicity. Far fewer studies have examined how groups build a shared identity by recognizing similarities that emerge through interaction.
A new study examines whether the structure of a team’s communication network shapes how strongly members develop a shared social identity—and whether that identity, in turn, affects team performance. The findings point to practical steps managers can take when designing teamwork and encouraging collaboration.
The research, conducted by scholars from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, was published in Small Group Research.
According to coauthor Linda Argote, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business, communication networks may influence performance not only by changing how information moves, but also by shifting what team members feel psychologically. When people share a social identity, they are more likely to exchange knowledge and collaborate, which often leads to stronger results.
Because many workplace tasks are interdependent, communication is essential for coordinating who does what and when. The researchers set out to test whether—and how—different communication patterns change the degree to which a group develops a shared identity.
The team focused on two features of communication networks: density, meaning how many communication ties exist compared with how many are possible, and centralization, meaning whether communication is concentrated around one or a few people. In a laboratory experiment, they systematically varied both density and centralization to see how the combination affected identity and performance.
The experiment involved 66 groups, each consisting of four participants, who worked on a software development task. They communicated within assigned network structures, and participants were recruited from a public subject pool at a university in the mid-Atlantic United States.
The results showed that higher network density improved shared social identity and group performance most strongly when the network was less centralized. In these less centralized settings, members tended to have more similar connection patterns to one another. The researchers also found that shared social identity helped explain why network structure influenced performance.
Based on the findings, the authors caution that simply adding more communication channels inside a team may not improve outcomes. If new ties increase differences in how connected members are—creating communication “haves” and “have-nots”—the group may develop a weaker shared identity and perform less effectively. For leaders, that means encouraging more interaction without considering the team’s existing structure can sometimes be counterproductive.
Coauthor Brandy Aven, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business, says the results can help leaders and managers make more informed choices about how to support teamwork and improve performance.
The researchers also note limitations. Their conclusions are most likely to apply to small teams working on interdependent tasks, especially where members can accurately perceive the group’s communication patterns.
Lead author Jonathan Kush, an associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth’s Charlton College of Business, argues that the study adds evidence that networks can shape group psychology. In some cases, he notes, increasing the number of ties can actually pull a team apart rather than bring it together.
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation and by Carnegie Mellon University’s Center for Organizational Learning, Innovation, and Knowledge.
