The Power of Dunbar's Number: Thriving in Groups of 150
In The Comfort Crisis , Michael Easter points to the average number of people living in various groups over history: 148.4 in hunter-gatherer tribes, 150 in Stone Age groups, 150-200 in villages of ancient Mesopotamia, and 125 in Roman military legions. And even today: 112.8 in Amish parishes in Pennsylvania, 180 in WWII army companies, 153.5 being the personal network of the average American, and 169 being the average number of “real friends” people keep reporting.
It all revolves around Dunbar’s number of 150. It was originally suggested by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, and it means that humans best thrive in groups of around this number. The bigger the group gets, the more difficult it is to know everyone and manage the group’s resources and activities. The bigger the society, the more structure, processes, rules, and laws need to be introduced. It gets complicated. And the human brain is not set up to deal with it.
There is a reason why our ancestors lived in smaller groups of up to 150 people. In such a group, everyone knows everyone. People rely on each other, trust each other, and know that helping each other is the only way to survive. They may still argue. They may still have some differences, but in times of crisis, they get together and do what’s best for the group. People will protect those they see as their own against outsiders.
That is the atmosphere of many start-ups and small companies. It is often a bit hectic and chaotic. Everyone does everything. That’s the point. People step in as needed and help each other because they know everyone around them, and they want to help the group survive and thrive. It is not about innovation. Most of the big multinational corporations generate more innovation than a small start-up ever can. But in a large company, you lose the small tribe feeling. You may not feel that you belong, you may not feel that others care, you may not feel protected. You are just a number in a spreadsheet.
Tribes of 150 People
Bill Gore of the Gore-Tex fame uses Dunbar’s number in business . He builds his factories with no more than 150 employees. If he needs to expand the business, he builds a new factory instead of expanding the already operating ones. That way, each factory is like a tribe where people know each other and can build trust and camaraderie. The bigger the group, the less chance of building strong relationships.
In 1992, Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist, came up with what is known as the Dunbar’s number . The number is 150, and it signifies the number of relationships we are capable of managing. Having more people in your life only means you don’t have the cognitive capability to interact with all of them in a meaningful way.
The 150 number is not a hard-pressed rule. Still, it is a start. It is again nature and evolution that lead here. Our ancestors lived in hunter-gatherer tribes that generally were not bigger than 100 to 150 people, and so we evolved to be able to keep track of that size of a group. Anything bigger, and we won’t remember the names and faces. We won’t be sure who the person is, and we definitely won’t trust them. And if you don’t know someone, it means they are not part of your group, and therefore they are suspicious. And that leads to all sorts of troubles if you are asked to collaborate. That is also one reason why, in big organizations, you need a hierarchy and organizing into smaller groups to manage the team effectively.
If you are in charge of an organization of ten thousand people, you may claim you care about every single employee, but you do it only in theory. It is an abstraction. You can’t truly care about every single person if you don’t even know their name. For that, you need an effective hierarchy where each subgroup’s leaders can build a closer relationship with every team member and, therefore, truly care and show it. And the employees, in return, see that someone truly cares and will take care of them. For this, you need groups of less than 150 people.
Leadership Works Only in Small Groups
In Leaders Eat Last , Simon Sinek points to why nature came up with the concept of leaders. If you live in a tribe of hunter-gatherers and catch a deer, how do you decide who will eat first? There might be 100 hungry people in the tribe, which would inevitably lead to fighting over food. That’s where leadership and hierarchy come in. The tribe lets the alphas eat first to be strong. We see their dominance, and we are willing to step back and let them have their meal. They feel like alphas. However, there is a price to pay. By accepting that the alphas can eat first and, therefore, get stronger than the rest of the tribe, we expect them to protect us. That includes the alphas ensuring that everyone, even the weakest in the tribe, gets to eat eventually. If the tribe gets attacked by a lion, we expect the alphas, who are stronger, better fed, and confident from all the adoration they get, to rush in and take care of the danger. And possibly get eaten in an effort to protect us.
And it still works today. Over the thousands of years of evolution, we made our peace with the fact that the alphas have certain privileges. In the past, being higher in the hierarchy meant getting the best food. Today, it might be getting better parking or a bigger salary. And so, we strive to enhance our status and place in society. But again, it comes with strings attached. When someone is higher in the hierarchy, we accept their bigger paycheck as natural, but we also expect protection. We are willing to tolerate someone being paid better than us or getting more perks as long as they take care of us.
When this silent agreement gets broken, we get angry. If the management gets paid a big bonus at the end of the year, while the company must downsize because of poor performance, this bond is broken. Why should we allow the alphas to get the best food if they walk away and let us die of hunger? When the leader breaks this unwritten social contract, we stop seeing them as leaders. We no longer believe that they deserve the perks they are getting. Unless you are willing to sacrifice your self-interest for the group’s interest, you are not leadership material. Regardless of how smart or skilled you are.
Putting It All Together
Jason Fried made an interesting observation . His company, 37signals, competes with the likes of Monday with about 1,500 employees, Asana with 1,600 employees, and Slack with 2,500 employees. Each of them has about 100-150k paying customers and a bunch of free users. Similar to 37signals. How many employees does 37signals have? About 80! Of course, the companies are not directly comparable due to different product portfolios, but in the ballpark, they are sort of similar in terms of business outcomes. The point is that it is not the size of the team that matters. You can build a big business with a small team, taking advantage of the simplified organization, easy communication, and bigger focus.
领英推荐
Keep this in mind when designing your organization. You want your part of the organization to be as self-contained as possible, empowered to make decisions, and autonomous. You want it to be less than 150 people and as flat as possible so the leader can truly know everyone on the team and care about them. You want leaders who genuinely understand their calling to be there for the tribe. To protect them and to help them succeed. You want a leader you can get to know and trust.
More on the topic of Leadership and Management:
What is your take on the topic? Is your organization the right size? Do you know the people you work with and who you need to get the job done? Do you care about them, and do they care about you? Do you have a leader who cares about the organization and who will step up and protect it when the lions come?
Originally posted on my blog about management, leadership, communication, coaching, introversion, stoicism, software development, and career TheGeekyLeader or follow me on Twitter: @GeekyLeader
Principal Product Designer | Cybersecurity Enthusiast | Helped Runecast Get Acquired by Dynatrace
3 个月Great article, Tom! ??
Director of Talent Acquisition | We're Hiring! ??
3 个月Tomas, thanks for sharing that thought-provoking article on Dunbar's number and how it relates to company size and leadership. It's fascinating to consider how our hunter-gatherer roots still influence the way we function best in groups today.