From Tribes to Teams: How Primitive Survival Instincts Shape Modern Organizations

Introduction

Human beings have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years under conditions that demanded cooperation for survival. Our ancestors faced harsh climates, dangerous predators, and scarce resources. Without strong social bonds and group structures, early human communities would have perished, unable to secure the essentials of life—food, shelter, safety, and knowledge. Over time, this fundamental survival strategy, rooted in the instinct to band together, has influenced everything from the formation of families to the development of vast, multinational corporations.

In the modern world, the explicit survival threats that once dominated human existence have largely receded—especially in stable, developed societies. Yet, our ingrained tendencies to form groups persist. We see their manifestation in families, neighborhoods, religious congregations, political parties, sports clubs, unions, and, importantly, the organizations we work for. Corporations, departments, and divisions are all human creations that mirror the long-established structure of tribal groups. What was once about survival in a hostile environment now translates into achieving success, prosperity, and growth in a competitive economic landscape. The parallels are remarkable: the same instincts that once led small bands of hunter-gatherers to cooperate now propel teams of professionals to share information, support each other’s efforts, and pursue common goals.

This article delves into the nature of groups, from their definition to their complexity and scale. We will explore how group sizes often correlate with specific behavioral patterns—aligning with concepts like Dunbar’s number—and how these principles extend to the world of companies. We will investigate how corporations mimic tribal structures and why hierarchy emerges as a crucial element of large, functional groups. Finally, we will discuss the consequences of neglecting these natural organizational tendencies, leading to dysfunction and inefficiency. By the end, it will be clear that understanding the primitive human instinct behind group formation and hierarchy can help modern organizations thrive.

1) Defining a Group

At its most fundamental level, a group can be defined as a collection of two or more individuals who interact, share common goals, or are bound by social and emotional ties. Groups differ from simple aggregates or crowds because they have some level of internal structure and a degree of shared identity. In other words, a group is not just people who happen to be in the same place at the same time; it is a unit of people who see themselves as connected, whether through kinship, purpose, values, or interests.

Groups are pervasive in human life. From infancy, individuals find themselves as part of a family—a classic example of a primary group where members share deep emotional bonds and mutual support. As children grow, they become part of school classes, friendship circles, sports teams, and clubs. In adulthood, groups evolve to include colleagues in workplaces, professional associations, community organizations, and more. Each of these groups provides something essential: identity, belonging, support, shared resources, and collective knowledge.

One critical aspect of a group is that it fosters a sense of inclusion and purpose. People often find meaning through their group memberships. In primitive times, being part of a tribe directly correlated with the likelihood of surviving the hardships of life in the wild. In modern times, being part of a supportive team at work can correlate with better job security, career development, and collective innovation. Whether primal or professional, the underlying instinct is the same: sticking together is better than going it alone.

2) Typical Group Sizes and the Concept of Dunbar’s Number

The size of a group deeply influences its dynamics, effectiveness, and the nature of relationships within it. Perhaps the best-known concept related to human group size is Dunbar’s number, proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar. He hypothesized that there is a cognitive limit to the number of stable social relationships one individual can maintain—often cited as roughly 150 people.

Dunbar’s number suggests that beyond a certain size, it becomes challenging for members of a group to know each other well enough to maintain a tight-knit, functional social circle. This figure, drawn from studies of primate brain size and social groupings, aligns with historical and anthropological observations. Hunter-gatherer communities, villages, and even military units throughout history often hover around this number. While it is not a hard and fast rule, Dunbar’s number offers a heuristic for understanding how scaling up affects social cohesion.

To understand this better, we can consider layers within Dunbar’s concept. It often breaks down as follows:

• Intimate Circle (around 5 individuals): These are your closest relationships—family members or best friends—whom you interact with regularly. They are the people you trust with your life, share secrets and intimate details, and rely on for support during times of crisis.
• Close Friends (about 15 individuals): Beyond the immediate core, there is a slightly larger group of close friends. You may not share everything with them, but you still know them well, understand their personality and history, and can count on their help and companionship.
• Trusted Networks (around 50 individuals): Expanding further, there may be up to about 50 people you know well enough to invite to a party, collaborate on projects, or rely upon for moderate assistance. These individuals are not your inner circle, but you are still comfortable interacting with them socially and professionally.
• Stable Communities (around 150 individuals): At the broader limit, you have a network of acquaintances, colleagues, community members, and extended friends. You might not know every detail about their lives, but you recognize their faces, remember their names, and have a general sense of who they are. Beyond this point, maintaining meaningful personal relationships becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, without subdividing the group.

This layered understanding of group sizes reflects a structure that has echoes across human societies—be they small villages, traditional tribes, or contemporary organizations. It also provides a framework for understanding corporate teams and departments. As groups grow larger, maintaining personal connections and mutual understanding becomes challenging, prompting the need for more formal structures and hierarchies to maintain order and purpose.

3) Examples of Group Sizes and Their Benefits

Groups of varying sizes appear across all sorts of social structures, and each size offers distinct benefits. From pairs to small communities to large cities, groups leverage human instincts to cooperate, share resources, and achieve goals that would be unattainable individually. Below are some examples and the advantages they confer.

A) Couples and Small Families (2-5 Individuals) At the most intimate level, the smallest stable group often consists of two people. Consider a couple—romantic partners or close siblings—who share resources, provide emotional support, and collaborate on life’s challenges. Add a child or two, and you have a small family unit. Such groups are crucial for providing emotional security, care, and stability. When someone is ill or financially strained, the other members of the family step in to help. Decisions are made cooperatively, and each individual’s well-being is a top priority. Historically, these small groups provided the first line of defense against the unpredictable hardships of daily life. Modern equivalents remain central to personal well-being, economic stability, and mental health.

B) Neighborhoods and Extended Families (15-50 Individuals) Beyond the nuclear family, neighborhoods and extended families form a larger social fabric. In traditional societies, extended families might include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and close family friends who live nearby. They share resources like tools, food, and skills, and look out for one another’s safety. In modern urban settings, neighborhoods can function similarly. People who live close together often build informal support networks, watch out for suspicious activities, lend each other a helping hand, and form community associations. Neighborhood groups create a sense of belonging and security, and can unite to tackle local issues, organize events, and maintain communal spaces. The group’s slightly larger size enables greater resource sharing and collective action while still preserving many personal connections.

C) Communities and Villages (50-150 Individuals) Historically, villages and small communities often hovered around Dunbar’s number—150 people. In such communities, everyone knows everyone else or can at least recognize them. These groups can collaborate on larger projects: building common infrastructure, maintaining irrigation systems, or sharing in the harvest. This size allows for specialization, as not everyone needs to perform every task. Some may be hunters, others farmers, and still others may be craftspeople or spiritual leaders. The result is a more complex economic and social system, one still grounded in personal relationships and trust. Modern equivalents might include a tight-knit professional network, a religious congregation, or a club where members share strong identity and mutual support.

D) Towns, Cities, and Nations (Thousands to Millions) As populations grow into the thousands, tens of thousands, and beyond, they can achieve feats impossible for smaller groups. Large cities become hubs of innovation, offering diverse economic opportunities, cultural exchanges, and extensive social services like healthcare, education, and security. The variety of skills, knowledge, and ideas in a large city fosters competition and cooperation on a grand scale. From an economic standpoint, cities enable businesses to form, grow, and thrive. This scale, however, requires formal governance structures—laws, regulations, and bureaucracies—to maintain order and functionality. The larger the group, the more abstract the relationships become. Instead of knowing each person, individuals identify with groups symbolically through shared citizenship, brand identities, or corporate logos. Where personal bonds fade, institutional structures and hierarchies step in to keep the group cohesive and functional.

At each level—couples, neighborhoods, communities, and cities—the same principle underlies group formation: cooperation provides greater safety, stability, and opportunity. It’s a direct extension of the survival strategies that have guided human evolution.

4) Applying the Theory of Groups to Companies

The modern corporation can be seen as a direct descendant of the ancient tribe. A company brings people together for mutual benefit—profit, professional growth, security, and collective achievement. Despite the differences in context, corporations function much like primitive groups: they rely on cooperation, shared goals, leadership, and trust to survive and thrive in competitive markets.

Companies organize themselves into teams, departments, and divisions that mirror the layered structure of human social capacities. A small team working on a project might resemble an extended family or a tribe of specialists. Everyone knows each other’s strengths, weaknesses, and habits. They can coordinate their efforts informally, share tacit knowledge, and quickly adapt to changes. This intimate working environment encourages trust, creativity, and loyalty—qualities that once ensured the survival of our ancestors and now ensure the success of modern enterprises.

As companies grow beyond the size where everyone can know everyone else, they encounter the same challenges that confronted larger human groups throughout history. Personal bonds and informal structures become insufficient. Formal roles, job titles, standard operating procedures, and managerial hierarchies emerge. The emotional glue that holds a small team together must be supplemented by rules, policies, and performance metrics to maintain unity and productivity.

In a dynamic, competitive marketplace, companies that fail to recognize these natural tendencies risk dysfunction. Understanding group dynamics, including the importance of optimal group sizes and the necessity of clear hierarchies, can be the difference between a thriving company and one that stagnates. Just as early tribes benefited from strong leadership and cooperation, modern companies that embrace these principles can become more resilient, innovative, and ultimately more successful.

5) How Groups Generate Departments and Corporate Divisions

As organizations grow in size, complexity, and ambition, they naturally subdivide into smaller, more manageable groups. This subdivision is not arbitrary—it reflects a fundamental human tendency to form communities within communities. Departments, teams, and corporate divisions emerge as internal “tribes” within the larger “nation” of the corporation.

Consider a large technology company with thousands of employees. It might be organized into divisions responsible for different products—smartphones, laptops, software solutions. Each division might then be broken down further into departments: hardware engineering, software development, marketing, human resources, finance, and so on. Within each department, teams form around specific projects or tasks. This multilevel structure mirrors the layered groups discussed earlier, with Dunbar’s number providing a psychological backdrop for why breaking down the organization is necessary.

Why does this happen? For one, smaller groups are better at fostering trust and communication. Within a department of say, 50 individuals, people can still know each other reasonably well, understand who is responsible for what, and resolve conflicts informally. At this scale, it’s possible to maintain a culture of mutual respect, shared understanding, and collective identity. The relationships become less personal as you move up to the entire division or corporation, but at the department level, people can still form meaningful professional relationships.

Another reason for this subdivision is the need for specialization. As companies tackle increasingly complex tasks, no single individual can master all relevant skills. By grouping specialists together, the company ensures that each team, department, or division has the expertise necessary to perform its functions at a high level. Just as early human tribes benefited from having hunters, gatherers, toolmakers, and shamans, modern corporations benefit from having engineers, marketers, accountants, and managers—each contributing their specialized knowledge and skills to the collective effort.

Corporate subdivisions also facilitate accountability and performance measurement. Managers can track the output of specific teams, identify bottlenecks, and improve productivity by understanding which segments of the organization need support or reorganization. This mirrors the way that larger communities rely on leaders to maintain order, identify threats, and guide collective decision-making.

6) The Importance of Hierarchy in Large Groups

Hierarchy is a structured ordering of individuals within a group, typically involving layers of authority, responsibility, and decision-making power. While some modern ideologies champion flat structures and egalitarianism, hierarchies have been a staple in human organization since the earliest tribes. This is because hierarchies address a fundamental challenge: how to maintain cohesion, order, and purpose in a large group where not everyone can know everyone else well.

In smaller groups—say a team of five people—decisions can often be made collectively, based on consensus or quick discussions. Everyone’s voice can be heard, and trust runs deep because personal relationships are strong. As the group expands to 50, 150, or 1,000 members, maintaining that same level of direct personal involvement in every decision becomes impossible. Hierarchy arises as a solution: it formalizes roles and responsibilities, ensuring that essential decisions can be made efficiently and enforced consistently.

Hierarchies provide several benefits:

1. Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities: With a clear hierarchy, individuals know who is responsible for what. Just as a tribe might designate certain individuals as hunters, others as scouts, and still others as leaders, corporations designate product managers, team leads, department heads, and executives. These roles reduce confusion and duplication of effort.
2. Efficient Decision-Making: By empowering certain positions with authority, hierarchies enable quick and decisive actions. In highly competitive markets, a chain of command ensures that decisions can be made rapidly without endless debate. This does not mean ignoring lower-level input, but it ensures that someone has the final say.
3. Conflict Resolution: Disagreements are inevitable in large groups. A hierarchical structure provides a framework for resolving conflicts by appealing to higher authority levels. Without hierarchy, disputes can fester, erode trust, and diminish productivity. Hierarchies can serve as conflict “escalation paths,” guiding how issues are settled.
4. Stability and Continuity: Hierarchies help maintain stability in times of change. If key individuals leave the organization, hierarchical structures provide clarity about succession, ensuring that responsibilities are passed on and that the group continues to function.
5. Scalability: As organizations grow, hierarchy facilitates scaling operations. It is challenging to maintain a flat structure with hundreds or thousands of individuals. Hierarchies break complexity down into manageable segments, allowing for controlled growth.

From a psychological standpoint, hierarchies resonate with deeply rooted human instincts. In early human groups, strong leaders emerged to coordinate hunting parties, negotiate alliances, and settle disputes. While modern corporate hierarchies differ vastly in context and complexity, the underlying logic is consistent. Without some form of structured leadership, large groups become disorganized, lose focus, and ultimately fail to survive—whether the threat is a predator or a competitive marketplace.

7) The Risk of Dysfunction Beyond Dunbar’s Number

Dunbar’s number reminds us that humans have cognitive and emotional limits on how many meaningful relationships they can maintain. When an organization grows beyond that threshold, personal bonds weaken, mutual understanding declines, and trust can erode. While hierarchy and structured subdivisions can mitigate these challenges, there is an inherent risk of dysfunction if growth and complexity are not managed carefully.

In a very large group—say a corporation with tens of thousands of employees—it is impossible for everyone to know everyone else or understand the intricacies of each department’s work. Communication becomes less direct and more mediated by reports, policies, and formal channels. While these mechanisms help maintain order, they also introduce bureaucracy and the potential for miscommunication.

Moreover, large sizes can lead to the formation of cliques, silos, and rival factions within the organization. Instead of acting as a cohesive unit aligned with the company’s mission, different parts of the organization might start prioritizing their own interests. Departments might become territorial, hoarding information or resources. Decision-making can slow to a crawl as multiple layers of management try to coordinate efforts. Inter-departmental conflicts, misaligned incentives, and a lack of clear direction from the top can all arise when the organization’s size outpaces its ability to maintain coherence.

A historical example is instructive: many large empires and bureaucracies eventually became unwieldy, falling into patterns of inefficiency and corruption. While a modern corporation is not an empire, the same principles apply. If people feel lost in a sea of strangers, it becomes harder to enforce shared values, maintain motivation, and foster a culture of innovation. In extreme cases, employees can feel like mere cogs in a machine, detached from the company’s goals and from their co-workers. This alienation can lead to reduced productivity, higher turnover, and difficulty adapting to changes.

Ultimately, while large size can bring advantages—access to more resources, economies of scale, diversified expertise—it must be balanced with mechanisms that maintain cohesion and purpose. Dunbar’s number is not a strict limit but a reminder that complexity must be managed thoughtfully. Without the careful design of structures, processes, and hierarchies that resonate with our human instincts, large organizations risk sliding into dysfunction.

8) The Perils of Organizations Without Clear Hierarchy

Some modern organizational theories propose flat structures with minimal hierarchy, believing that egalitarianism fosters creativity, autonomy, and employee satisfaction. While this can work for small startups or specialized teams where everyone is highly motivated and skilled, the absence of clear hierarchy often leads to confusion, inefficiency, and conflict as the organization grows.

Imagine a company without designated leaders or managers. Who makes decisions about hiring, firing, product direction, pricing strategies, or conflict resolution? In the best-case scenario, the group might arrive at consensus through long discussions. But as the organization grows and deadlines loom, reaching consensus on every matter becomes increasingly challenging. Without a hierarchy, responsibilities become blurry, and accountability suffers. Projects can stall because no one has the final say. Conflicts can intensify because there is no accepted authority to mediate disputes. Talented employees might grow frustrated if they cannot execute ideas due to lack of direction or pushback from countless peers.

Moreover, the absence of hierarchy can actually lead to hidden hierarchies or informal power structures. In such scenarios, leadership roles often emerge unofficially, based on personal influence, charisma, or even office politics. Without the transparency and accountability of a defined organizational chart, these unofficial leaders may manipulate the system to their advantage, leading to inequality and mistrust. The result can be worse than a well-defined hierarchy, as it combines the inefficiency of unclear roles with the potential for covert power plays.

In contrast, a well-designed hierarchy is not oppressive; it provides direction, clarity, and a mechanism for progress. Good leaders empower their teams, solicit feedback, and create an environment where everyone understands the mission and their part in achieving it. Hierarchies that acknowledge human psychology—offering stability, recognition, and room for growth—tend to support healthy organizational cultures.

The key insight is that hierarchy, when balanced with open communication, fair policies, and opportunities for employee engagement, is not antithetical to creativity or well-being. Rather, it can enhance them by providing a stable framework in which individuals can excel. Without that framework, organizations risk descending into a chaotic environment that stifles innovation and cooperation—the very qualities a flat structure is intended to promote.

9) Maintaining Unity and Inclusion in Multicultural Teams

As organizations expand globally, they often find themselves managing teams that are not only larger but also more diverse in terms of nationality, culture, religion, education, and behavioral norms. While diversity can be a significant source of strength—fostering innovation, creativity, and broader perspectives—it also brings challenges. Understanding these challenges is essential for maintaining unity and inclusion within large, heterogeneous groups.

One of the core hurdles is communication. In a team composed of members from different linguistic backgrounds, even a common business language like English might be spoken with varying levels of fluency. Misunderstandings can arise from accents, idiomatic expressions, or cultural assumptions embedded in language. Moreover, communication styles differ: some cultures favor direct, explicit communication, while others rely heavily on context, subtlety, and nonverbal cues. Navigating these differences requires patience, sensitivity, and sometimes formal training to develop intercultural communication skills.

Cultural norms also affect work styles, attitudes toward hierarchy, and expectations about decision-making. Some cultural backgrounds instill respect for hierarchical authority and expect leaders to make most of the decisions. Others emphasize egalitarianism and collective input. Without proper understanding and negotiation of these differences, conflicts can arise, and employees may feel marginalized or misunderstood.

Religious and cultural holidays, dietary restrictions, and differing views on work-life balance can present additional complexities. Inclusive leaders must acknowledge and accommodate these differences in a way that does not disadvantage any group. For instance, offering a variety of meal options at company events or allowing flexible holiday schedules helps ensure that all team members feel respected and included.

Education and professional background also influence problem-solving approaches. Team members with technical degrees may focus on quantifiable data and systematic analysis, while those with liberal arts backgrounds might prioritize qualitative insights and human-centric considerations. Leveraging such complementary skill sets can be a strength—diverse educational backgrounds enrich a team’s intellectual toolkit—but it requires a culture that values all perspectives, ensuring no one feels subordinate because of their academic training.

To maintain unity in a multicultural environment, companies must foster an inclusive culture that celebrates differences rather than treating them as obstacles. This can be achieved through diversity and inclusion training, mentorship programs, resource groups, and deliberate policies that encourage equitable opportunities for leadership and advancement. Leaders who actively listen, seek feedback from underrepresented groups, and model respectful behavior set the tone for the entire organization.

Ultimately, the challenges of managing diverse teams mirror the challenges our ancestors faced when tribes merged or formed alliances. The same instincts that drive humans to form groups—seeking common ground, building trust, and cooperating toward shared goals—apply in multicultural corporate settings. With conscious effort, training, and empathy, modern organizations can not only maintain unity but also harness the unique strengths that each cultural lens brings to the table.

10) The Challenges of Employee Retention in Large Corporations

As organizations scale and evolve into large, complex entities, one of the most persistent challenges they face is retaining talent. High employee turnover rates can disrupt workflows, drain institutional knowledge, and increase costs associated with recruiting and training new hires. Although employee retention is relevant to organizations of all sizes, large corporations must deal with unique problems that stem from their scale, hierarchical structures, and internal group dynamics.

In very large corporations, individuals may begin to feel like anonymous cogs in a massive machine. Unlike in a small startup, where each employee’s impact is visible and acknowledged, large corporations can struggle to provide a sense of belonging and personal significance to every employee. When people feel that their contributions are overlooked or undervalued, they become more susceptible to leaving in search of more fulfilling opportunities.

Maintaining meaningful relationships within huge corporate networks is also difficult. Without personal connections to coworkers or leaders, employees may feel isolated. Lack of direct access to upper management or a sense that they are not being heard can erode loyalty. This is exacerbated when employees perceive that communication flows in one direction—from the top down—with insufficient feedback loops.

Moreover, hierarchical and bureaucratic processes can hinder career progression. Ambitious employees who crave growth might find the path to promotion unclear or unnecessarily long. They may feel stuck in mid-level positions for years, overshadowed by more senior colleagues or buried under layers of management. Without transparent career ladders, mentorship, and professional development programs, large organizations risk losing talented individuals to competitors that offer clearer advancement opportunities.

Cultural misalignments can also come into play. As corporations expand into new regions and absorb smaller companies, they inherit diverse corporate cultures. If executives fail to harmonize these cultures into a coherent, value-driven environment, employees may leave, feeling that the corporate ethos does not match their personal values or expectations. Similarly, if diversity and inclusion initiatives are superficial rather than genuine, employees from underrepresented groups may feel marginalized, prompting them to seek more welcoming workplaces.

To combat these challenges, large corporations must intentionally build cultures that treat employees as individuals rather than numbers. Regular surveys, employee resource groups, town hall meetings, and mentorship programs can help employees feel connected and valued. Implementing fair and transparent promotion processes, investing in training and development, and recognizing achievements publicly can all bolster retention. Aligning the company’s mission and values with its day-to-day operations also helps, as people tend to stay in organizations whose purpose resonates with their own.

Ultimately, retaining talent in a large corporation requires balancing scale with humanity. While the organization might rely on robust hierarchies and procedures to function, it must also ensure that employees have opportunities to grow, feel appreciated, and understand how their work contributes to a larger purpose. It is a delicate dance—one that successful corporations learn to perform if they hope to thrive over the long term.

Conclusion

Human beings have always formed groups, from small family units to vast empires. This instinct is rooted in the fundamental need for survival—strength in numbers—an ancient truth that has carried over into every aspect of modern life. Today, we see the same patterns in companies, departments, sports clubs, religions, and nation-states. The logic of grouping remains: cooperation enhances our chances of achieving what we cannot accomplish alone.

Understanding the natural limits of group size, as encapsulated by Dunbar’s number, helps us appreciate why organizations naturally break down into teams and departments as they grow. It explains why hierarchy emerges as an indispensable tool for maintaining cohesion, order, and purpose at large scales. Without some form of structured leadership and defined roles, large groups risk confusion, power struggles, and loss of direction—problems that can undermine success in a competitive environment.

Modern corporations provide a compelling case study. Like ancient tribes, they rely on trust, coordination, and shared goals. They subdivide into manageable units where people can still know one another and work together effectively. They establish hierarchies to ensure rapid decision-making, clear accountability, and conflict resolution. Done well, these structures allow organizations to harness the diverse talents of their members, scale their operations, and innovate in ways that small groups cannot.

At the same time, leaders must remain vigilant. Growing beyond the point where personal relationships knit the group together requires deliberate organizational design. Managers must create and maintain channels of communication, clarify roles, and ensure that the company’s mission is well understood. Flat structures might seem attractive at first glance, but without careful management, they can quickly become dysfunctional as the organization grows. By acknowledging our inherited social instincts and respecting the cognitive limits we carry, we can build organizations that are both efficient and humane.

In essence, the story of group formation—from primitive tribes to multinational corporations—is the story of human nature adapting to new challenges. We have come a long way from huddling around a fire for warmth and protection, but our fundamental need to connect, cooperate, and thrive together remains as strong as ever. Understanding these underlying instincts and leveraging them thoughtfully is key to building sustainable, functional organizations that can succeed in an increasingly complex and competitive world.