Tried & True: Article III, Dyads and Clubs, Social Networking Evidence

Founding On the Rise Coaching and Consulting, I constantly explore how social networks influence professional and personal dynamics. A fascinating study by David-Barrett et al. (2015) sheds light on the differences in how men and women build and maintain their social networks. This article will delve into the study's findings and discuss the study's implications for building effective networks, focusing on quality vs. quantity trade-offs, out-group defense coalitions, and isolation as a means to an end.

Quality vs. Quantity Trade-offs

David-Barrett and colleagues (2015) found that women tend to favor dyadic (groups of two) relationships, emphasizing the quality of their social connections, while men prefer more extensive group affiliations or "clubs," indicating a focus on quantity.??

Building deep, meaningful relationships often leads to more fruitful and trust-based partnerships. For instance, during a recent project, I focused on strengthening one-on-one relationships with key stakeholders, which resulted in more robust support and better project outcomes. This approach aligns with the finding that quality relationships can yield significant benefits, and clubs pave the way for our ability to create coalitions and alliances that produce systemic changes inside and outside organizations.

Out-Group Defense Coalitions

Men are more likely to form larger groups for out-group defense (appearing stronger and better coordinated), which can be impactful in competitive environments, and women are more likely to form smaller groups for in-group defense (appearing selective and closely connected). This is evident in business settings, where forming strategic alliances can help protect and advance interests; ultimately, being highly transactional and forming social -bonds can produce a scaffolding effect to advance members.

I encourage everyone to recognize and become aware of the human condition, form coalitions dependent on desired goals or objectives, and create individual strategies regardless of group context. For example, aligning with other businesses to develop a reputable presence during a competitive market entry can be more effective than using dyadic social bond tendencies that may lack expansion results.

Understanding these dynamics allows entrepreneurs and business owners to tailor their efforts using human condition strategies to leverage the natural tendencies of both genders in forming alliances for more predictable outcomes.

Isolation as a Means to an End

Isolation can sometimes be strategic, serving to achieve specific goals. David-Barrett and Dunbar (2014) discuss how social elites can emerge when network interactions are restricted. This concept is particularly relevant in leadership and high-stakes negotiations where selective interactions can lead to more significant influence and control.

In my observations, leaders who selectively engage with key individuals or groups often manage to drive targeted change. For example, during a corporate restructuring, a CEO who strategically isolated specific high-performing teams produced rapid results and ultimately made the desired outcome but with both downstream negative and positive impacts. These various impacts should be documented so that future pursuits can be weighted on historical results, which can benefit new strategic, targeted initiatives.

This deliberate isolation helped maintain focus and drive results, but repeated and frequent attempts can often disable organizations and communities from making harmonious decisions, leading to a select few rising and selective near-sighted decision-making.

Applying Social Networking Evidence to Your Business

Understanding the nuances of social networking, strategic coalitions, and isolation strategies can significantly enhance how we build and manage professional relationships. Here are some actionable steps based on these insights that can empower you to navigate the professional landscape more effectively:

1. Prioritize Relationship Quality & Quantity: Focus on building deep, meaningful connections that can lead to trust-based collaborations and long-term success coupled with quantity-based relationships where transactions are freely given and taken to make reach more impactful. It's like getting rid of a cold by using several remedies, not just cough medicine, leading to more effective results.
2. Form Strategic Coalitions: Recognize the value of more extensive group affiliations for competitive advantage and recognize natural tendencies in forming alliances to create individual strategies that generate more autonomy.
3. Use Strategic Isolation: Employ selective interactions to maintain focus and drive significant outcomes in leadership and high-stakes scenarios, document the approach, and use historical insights to benefit new initiatives. If necessary, have a third-party participant in the documentation process who can formulate unbiased qualitative results.

By applying these insights, businesses can create more effective and dynamic networks. Please consider how these insights can be tailored to your organization through these series of questions:

• Which key stakeholders or team members should we focus on developing deeper one-on-one relationships with to enhance project outcomes and collaboration?
• What existing networks or industry groups can we join or create to form strategic coalitions to help us compete more effectively?
• How can our leadership team selectively isolate high-performing units or individuals to drive innovation and maintain focus on critical initiatives?
• How can we design team-building activities or networking opportunities catering to dyadic and club-like preferences to improve team cohesion?
• What metrics can we use to evaluate whether our current balance of deep, quality relationships versus broad, extensive networks effectively supports our organizational goals?

Conclusion

The study by David-Barrett et al. offers a comprehensive understanding of how gender differences in social networking can impact professional dynamics. We can build more robust, more effective networks by focusing on quality vs. quantity trade-offs, forming strategic coalitions, and using isolation strategically. As we continue to explore and apply these insights, we pave the way for more honest discussions about professional endeavors, the human condition, and how to deploy individual strategies for success.

References

Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). Social network size in humans. Human Nature, 14, 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-003-1016-y

Dávid-Barrett, T., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Cooperation, behavioral

synchrony and status in social networks. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 308, 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.05.007

Dávid-Barrett, T., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2014). Social elites can emerge naturally when interaction in networks is restricted. Behavioral Ecology, 25(1), 58-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/art085

David-Barrett, T., Rotkirch, A., Carney, J., Behncke Izquierdo, I., Krems, J. A., Townley, D., McDaniell, E., Byrne-Smith, A., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2015). Women favor dyadic relationships, but men prefer clubs: Cross-cultural evidence from social networking. PLoS One, 10(3), e0118329. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118329

Organizational Behavior. (2024). In Organizational Behaviour. Seneca College Pressbooks. https://pressbooks.senecacollege.ca/organizationalbehaviour/chapter/chapter-1/