Hub sites are often introduced as the solution to SharePoint sprawl. They promise structure, shared navigation, consistent branding, and a way to group related sites without forcing everything into one place. When designed with a clear purpose, hub sites do exactly that.
Yet in many real-world environments, the hub site slowly becomes the very thing it was meant to prevent. Instead of clarity, it introduces friction. Navigation becomes harder to manage, search results feel unreliable, governance discussions stall, and even small changes start to feel risky. At that point, the problem is no longer SharePoint itself, but how the hub site is being used.
This rarely happens because of a bad decision. More often, it happens because hub sites are deceptively easy to set up. That simplicity hides the architectural impact they have on navigation, search, permissions, ownership, and long-term scalability.
A hub site is not just a visual grouping of sites. The moment sites are connected to a hub, expectations change. Users assume content is related, searchable, and governed in a consistent way. If those expectations are not met by design, the hub starts working against you.
This first diagram sets the right mental model. A hub does not contain content. It connects sites. It provides shared signals, not hierarchy. When that distinction is lost, problems start to appear.
Why hub sites start strong — and then get in the way
Most hub site issues originate from good intentions. Teams want one central place to bring everything together. They want fewer entry points, less confusion, and a structure that feels logical. The hub seems like the perfect answer.
Over time, however, that central place starts absorbing more responsibility than it should. Every site wants visibility. Every team wants a link in the navigation. Governance questions are postponed instead of answered. Slowly, the hub turns from a connector into a bottleneck.
The first signals are usually subtle, but once you know them, they are easy to recognise.
When hub navigation becomes overcrowded
It almost always starts innocently. A few links are added to help users find their way. Then more sites are connected. Then someone asks for a direct link to a library. A project wants to be visible “just for now.” Before long, nested navigation appears, trying to keep things manageable.
At that point, navigation is no longer guiding users. It is compensating for missing structure, unclear ownership, and poor findability. The hub navigation becomes a sitemap, a directory, and sometimes even a workaround for search issues.
This comparison is often painfully recognisable. On one side, a hub navigation that tries to show everything. On the other, navigation that focuses on orientation and leaves detail where it belongs.
Fixing this does not require rebuilding the hub. It requires redefining intent. Hub navigation should help users understand where they are and where to go next. It should not expose every document or library. Removing deep links and limiting navigation to stable entry points usually brings immediate relief. In many cases, it also reveals that one hub is trying to serve too many purposes.
When search feels random across hub-connected sites
Another common complaint is that search “doesn’t work.” Users know content exists, yet they struggle to find it. Copilot answers feel incomplete or unexpected. Search is blamed, but search is rarely the problem.
From a user’s perspective, everything under a hub feels related. From a search perspective, it often is not. Sites connected to the same hub frequently use different metadata models, different content types, and different permission structures. Search relies on those signals, not on navigation or branding.
This diagram makes an important point visible: the hub defines a perceived scope, but search only works well when structure and signals align within that scope.
Improving search in a hub does not mean forcing one metadata model everywhere. It means being intentional about which content is actually searched together and aligning only what truly needs alignment. When you start treating the hub as a shared search context instead of a visual container, search quality improves naturally.
When hub ownership becomes unclear or political
As hubs grow, ownership often becomes a sensitive topic. Decisions about navigation, connected sites, or changes become slow. Everyone has an opinion, but no one feels accountable. Governance discussions circle endlessly without resolution.
This usually happens when a hub is aligned too closely with organizational hierarchy instead of responsibility. Communication content, operational work, and projects all live under the same hub, even though they evolve at very different speeds and serve different audiences.
Clear accountability changes that dynamic. One person or team should be responsible for the hub’s coherence and long-term intent. That does not mean working in isolation, but it does mean decisions do not stall. Separating stable communication hubs from more dynamic operational or project hubs often removes tension almost immediately.
When every site automatically connects to the hub
In many environments, connecting a site to the hub becomes the default. Every new site is added “for consistency,” without questioning whether it actually belongs there. Over time, the hub grows endlessly and loses its meaning.
A hub should always be a conscious architectural choice. Some sites should never be connected. Others may only belong temporarily.
This simple decision flow is often enough to change behaviour. When teams are forced to answer a few basic questions, hub growth becomes intentional instead of automatic.
Allowing sites to exist outside a hub is not a failure of governance. It is often a sign that the architecture is mature enough to support different needs.
When changes to the hub feel risky
Perhaps the clearest signal that a hub has become a problem is fear. When people say, “Let’s not touch it, we might break something,” the hub has usually taken on too many responsibilities. Navigation, branding, governance, and search are tightly coupled, and no one fully understands the impact of change.
In that situation, doing nothing feels safer than improving things.
The way out is rarely a big redesign. Reducing the hub’s responsibilities is far more effective. Branding does not need to be tied to navigation. Governance does not need to live in the hub alone. Documenting why the hub exists and what it is meant to solve makes change smaller, safer, and easier to justify.
What a healthy hub site actually does
A healthy hub groups sites with a shared purpose. It provides orientation without trying to be exhaustive. It supports findability instead of replacing search. Most importantly, it is allowed to evolve over time.
A hub site should not mirror the org chart, replace governance, or become the single entry point into everything. When those expectations creep in, complexity and tension follow.
Hub Site Review Checklist
Use this checklist to review an existing hub site or to validate a new one before it grows out of control.
Purpose and scope
Is the purpose of the hub clearly defined? Is it clear what the hub is meant to solve, and what it is explicitly not meant to solve?
Navigation
Does the hub navigation focus on orientation rather than completeness? Can the navigation logic be explained in one sentence?
Search and findability
Are the sites connected to this hub genuinely meant to be searched together? Are key metadata concepts aligned where it matters?
Ownership and governance
Is there one accountable owner for the hub? Are changes guided by principles instead of ad-hoc requests?
Growth and change
Are there clear criteria for connecting new sites to the hub? Are hub connections reviewed periodically?
Final thoughts
When a hub site feels heavy, political, or fragile, that is not a tooling problem. It is an architectural signal.
The good news is that hub site issues almost never require a full rebuild. They are usually resolved by clarifying intent, challenging assumptions, and making deliberate, incremental changes.
That is how a hub site returns to what it was meant to be: a guide, not a constraint.