This is exactly the <i>opposite</i> of what the article says. Please don&#x27;t try to hijack it with pro-military stumping.<p>Excerpt:<p><i>As the researchers studied the groups, however, they noticed two behaviors that all the good teams generally shared. First, on the good teams, members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a phenomenon the researchers referred to as &quot;equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking.&quot; On some teams, everyone spoke during each task; on others, leadership shifted among teammates from assignment to assignment. But in each case, by the end of the day, everyone had spoken roughly the same amount. &quot;As long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well,&quot; Woolley said. &quot;But if only one person or a small group spoke all the time, the collective intelligence declined.&quot;</i><p><i>Second, the good teams all had high &quot;average social sensitivity&quot; — a fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt...</i><p>That is way more fluid in terms of authority and touchy-feely than rigid military hierarchies.<p>Which makes sense given that roles are much more fluid in creative enterprises and there&#x27;s no life-or-death quick decisionmaking that favors decisiveness over debate. Not to say that there&#x27;s no creative thinking in the military, but role and responsibilities can be more clearly defined at the outset.