Hi adsactly, I have to agree with @everittdmickey.

The network diagram you show labeled B does not give everyone in the organization an equal playing field.

• There are network effects at play that give some nodes more power than other nodes. Primarily, the nodes that are more central to the network and more connected will have a lot more power. Maybe this is what you are trying to achieve? A truly democratic system?

Linking some really valuable info on network effects that I learned about in college. You may be interested to take a look!

Your centralized network actually does equalize all nodes (except of course the central one) given that the central node is impartial (e.g. assuming that the length of the edges has no significant meaning). However this can be really harmful for the reasons you alluded to.

The distributed network however, gets you much closer to a fair and equal system because each node has some way to get information from at least 2 other nodes.

• This is actually really important, because it gives the node a choice in the way in which they participate within the organization.

• In diagram B the choice is participate or don't, which seems unfair.

• The problem with the distributed network is that some nodes who are more central have more influence, however, information can travel much more fluidly. This could be good or bad or neutral. (You might think of it like a disease. The more connected everyone is the higher chance each individual will get it. Though if you have two 'diseases' that contradict each other it may not be all that bad.

What do you think?