Bavelas Networks
December 1st, 2017
In the 1950’s, social psychological researchers were increasingly concerning themselves with the study of groups, and how groups solve problems and how these processes differ from individuals solving problems. Often, however, these researchers overlooked a fundamental component of group interaction: communication patterns. More specifically, the structure of these communication patterns and how they impact the transfer of information between individuals. If problem solving is a function of information transfer among parties, then it stands to reason that the “flow” of this information between individuals has a significant impact on the solution generated for a given problem. Bavelas hypothesized that certain types of group structures are better (or worse ...) for solving certain types of problems.
Why does this matter for an organization? What can a manager do with this information? That’s a dandy-ass question. Let interstitio tell you! The reveal (The Prestige?!?!), in short, is that organizations can strategically create certain types of communication structures in their task groups which are ideally matched to the problem at hand.
Put on your manager hat and consider the following two communication structures implemented by a savvy Executive type who reads this blog. What do you see? The blue circles are individual employees, and the arrows between them represent possible avenues of communication. Where no direct arrow exists, no direct communication is possible between any two given problem solvers. As you may see, the two groups differ in the ways in which members can, and cannot, communicate with one another.
The graph--what we call a communication network in Network Science--on the left is ‘maximally connected’. Every person in the task group has a direct line of communication to everyone else in the group. The graph on the right is more towards ‘minimally connected’ i.e. people can only directly speak to their direct neighbors.
These types of graphs (arrangements of people) are strikingly common in their appearance in daily life. For instance, the graph on the left, resembles an assemblage of jurors. Each person, in theory, can directly address every other person in the group. While, in contrast, the graph on the right more closely resembles a hierarchical chain of command, such you might find in the military or in a production setting.
This is an important observation if you pause to consider the problems these two task groups are, well, tasked with. The juror group are making decisions based on inherently subjective, intangible, possibly incomplete, and often, biased information. The juror group, in turn, are full of their own personal, social, and cultural biases which impact how they process information. Because of this murky information, and the biases inherent to each juror, it is likely that certain jurors are going to have more, or less, extreme reactions to the evidence presented. What a maximally connected graph allows for is the averaging of these extreme opinions into something more central, and in theory, less biased (maximally connected graphs are also realllllyyyy good at promoting group-think and mass hysteria. Different story for a different day).
In contrast, the task of a chain of command in the military is to efficiently pass information from person to person. Perhaps more importantly, the information being passed is not to change or be impacted by personal, social, or cultural bias. In theory, what a minimally connected graph does is to minimize the likelihood that dissenting opinions, or cross table discussion, interfere or alter the original communication. This serves to preserve the original communique, albeit sometimes with disastrous consequences (see for example here and here). Certain communication structures are, on average, better for coping with ambiguous and complex social problems. Other types of communication structures are better at preserving the status quo and enacting standing orders.
A interstitio, we are experts in assessing the types of problems you might be facing, and helping you think through how to effectively structure your task groups to promote optimal outcomes. If this sounds interesting, if you’d like to learn more, or just have some questions - be sure and drop us a line.
