Blog

Imagine this: five people, one shared task, and four very different communication networks. Each person sees a different part of the puzzle. To solve it, they must exchange information – but only through predefined communication channels.

That was the setup of a deceptively simple 1950s experiment on group problem-solving, conducted by Alex Bavelas and Alex Leavitt. What it uncovered is still relevant today:

HOW communication flows through a team matters more than WHAT is communicated.

And if you’re leading a team today – in an era of hybrid work, organizational complexity, nonstop change, and high-stakes environments – their findings may be more relevant than ever.

The four structures tested — and what they revealed:

1. ⭐The “Star”: One person sits in the centre. Everyone sends and receives information only through them.

🧠 Results:

• When the task was clear with no “noise” involved, the “star” groups demonstrated fastest performance. They completed the experiment almost twice as fast as the participants in the “circular” groups…
• … however, they experienced a sense of failure and frustration. They felt that they were acting slowly and inefficiently. They blamed this on “some idiot” – one of the group members.
• “Clear leadership” emerged. Ninety-four percent of the members of the “star” groups named the central person the “leader” – regardless of this person’s actual effectiveness during the experiment.
• Not surprisingly, this central figure reported high stress.
• When the “noise” was added and confusion arose, the “star” groups underwent a dramatic change: depending on the level of “messiness”, the groups sooner or later fell apart! The participants left their “workplaces” in anger, exchanging reproaches and accusations at each other – and the number of “idiots” increased. From notes that the participants exchanged during the experiment, it became clear that the members of the “star” group soon stop discussing the task altogether, and simply start calling each other names.

✅ So, could a “star” structure be the one to choose? Of course. It is perfect for: high-stakes, low-ambiguity situations; in emergencies; or in tight control environments – when fast, repeatable execution is needed.

⚠️ But! The “star” becomes fragile under stress or change, or when innovation is needed.

---

2. 🪢 The “Y” (a branching structure): Two members feed information into a middleman, who passes it on.

🧠 Results:

• Some delay in communication, so slower than “Star”.
• Some hierarchy, but not overly rigid. Uneven power and clarity.

✅ Best when: A balance is needed between hierarchy and decentralization – such as in multi-team coordination.

⚠️ Risk: Intermediate “hubs” may get overwhelmed or bottlenecked.

---

3. 📏 The “Line”: A straight path from one end of the team to the other. Only adjacent members can communicate.

🧠 Results:

• One of the slowest to complete tasks
• High potential for misunderstandings
• Frustration among members on the ends
• Central person gains influence by default

✅ Best when: Tasks are sequential and simple – think assembly lines or relay processes.

⚠️ Risk: Central overload + disempowered endpoints.

---

4. 🔄 The “Circle”: Everyone communicates only with their immediate neighbours, forming a closed loop.

🧠 Results:

• The “circle” groups solved the problem more slowly…
• …but members felt good about the process. Low stress, high satisfaction, and everyone stayed engaged.
• Now when the “noise” was introduced and things got messy, the “circles” continued to work with the same success – although even more slowly than before. Creative solutions emerged, and participants still “felt great” and believed that they were “doing well with their task.”
• And leadership? It was shared. When participants were asked if they could say who the leader of the group was, the answers showed that leadership was evenly distributed among all five of them.

✅ Good for: Navigating complexity and change – when teams need autonomy, shared learning, or are solving novel problems.

⚠️ Risky when: Tight deadlines or strict compliance are non-negotiable.

What does this mean for you as a team leader?

You may not run your meetings in sealed booths. But the way communication flows in your team – whether it’s open or centralized, participative or restricted – shapes far more than just decision speed.

🔍 If your team structure looks like a “Star”…

• You’ll probably get quick execution on clearly defined tasks.
• Your leadership role will rarely be challenged, regardless of your actual skills or efficiency…
• …but you’ll be solely responsible for interpreting ambiguity, handling disruptions, and solving every “noise” in the system.
• Team members may defer rather than contribute.
• And when things go wrong? Fingers point inward.

Simple processes benefit from clear authority and minimal communication paths. But in environments of uncertainty, innovation, or rapid change, rigid hierarchies start to fail.

🔄 If your team structure leans toward the “Circle”…

• You’ll build resilience against uncertainty.
• People will invent new ways to make sense of messy information.
• You’ll see more creativity, flexibility, and ownership…
• …but it may take longer to reach a decision.
• And your leadership won’t go unchallenged – you’ll have to earn it, daily.

When teams are trained and encouraged to communicate directly and solve problems together, they not only perform better under pressure, but also develop more durable collaboration habits. Decentralized networks are slower – but smarter.

The leadership challenge: design communication intentionally

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. But here’s the real takeaway: the way people are “wired” into a team – who talks to whom, how decisions are made, who has visibility – directly impacts outcomes.

👉 Your leadership style isn’t just about what you say – it’s about the communication structure you enable, often without realizing it. Map and assess your real communication flows (not just the org chart). Communication structure shapes your team’s performance.

👉 And in today’s environment – where “noise” is everywhere – that structure might be your most powerful management tool.

The real value here isn’t in picking the “best” structure – it’s about being conscious of the one you’re using.

Communication design is not a soft skill. It’s an operational lever. And sometimes, changing the way your team communicates is more effective than hiring, reorganizing, or launching another initiative.

A word on AI and communication

In the era of AI, many companies are automating communication and decision-making processes – often in pursuit of centralization and efficiency. But beware: AI thrives in structured environments, yet human teams thrive in networks.

The challenge for today’s leaders is not to eliminate complexity, but to build communication architectures that can hold it.