Actually, sometimes less really is more

There are some concepts that you learn about that just stay with you. You might have first come across them in a particular scenario, but time and time again you come back to them for new reasons and find them just as impactful. For me, Dunbar’s number is one of them.

I first read about Dunbar’s number in “The Social Brain”, a book on the psychology of successful groups by Camilleri, Rockey and (as you might have guessed) Dunbar. It’s a great book for anyone who wants to truly understand team dynamics. Not just how to get a team to perform, but how to create trust, a meaningful bond and a sense of belonging. I believe this book to be somewhat timeless in nature but feel it’s increasingly important to consider these human needs in an ever more data-focused, fast-paced world.

But Dunbar’s number… what was it that really resonated?

Like many concepts that have lasting impact, it’s one that’s relatively simple at its core. Dunbar looked at group sizes and how we interact. He found there were 6 layers:

·       5 People. These are the people closest to you. In life this might be your immediate family unit

·       15 People. This layer includes good friends and extended family. People you can rely on to support you

·       50 People. We’re now looking at wider friends with co-workers and neighbours in the mix. Still people you feel close to, but not to the same degree as the previous layers

·       150 People. At this point the connections are still meaningful, but much more casual in their nature

·       500 People. This layer is even more casual than before. You might recognise and say hello to this group but wouldn’t class them as meaningful connections.

·       1,500 People. This is considered the maximum number of faces you can recognise and connect names to

Dunbar’s work extends these concepts to the business world. The 150 layer is particularly important. It’s the limit to the number of meaningful connections we can sustain. The human brain has a cognitive ceiling, and our neocortex struggles to maintain social connection, feelings of trust or empathy beyond this number. For companies wanting to create communities, networks and feelings of shared values, this is key. That’s not to say 150 employees becomes the maximum headcount. But distinct communication channels need to exist that bear in mind the 150 People ceiling to creating intimate connections that we know to be vital in delivering clear messaging and creating engagement. Informal measure that might work in the lower group size layers will likely fail as the group size increases. But equally ‘blanket’ mass messaging might also lack that human quality that means we can connect and trust. It’s why I believe communication strategies should be considered that increase the level of detail and connection as group size decreases.

But it was the split between the layer of 5 people and 15 people had the most practical impact on me personally. Not long after I learned about the concept, I was in a meeting with around 15 people. 15 people who were all engaged, bright and enthusiastic. Yet as the meeting tried to reach a consensus as to actions to take, few people opted to share their thoughts. “What do we think?” was met with silence. People looking side to side to see who might speak first. When addressed directly, they had great ideas but in the forum of 15 people this didn’t get shared readily. Looking back, I can see this was not an isolated occurrence. At this group size the technique of ‘creeping’ round the room was commonplace to make sure all voices were heard. But even then, there’s still a general sense of thoughts left unsaid. Unless the host adopts a continuous circling back process there’s always someone with something that’s not being spoken out loud. Whilst a consensus might eventually be reached, it didn’t feel truly collaborative.

Neuroscience has a part to play here too. But it’s complicated. We are ‘pack animals’ at our core and contributing to community is important to us. But communities often are made up of people who hold particular roles. We see this when a natural group leader will likely dominate discussion whilst others stay quiet. But alongside our wanting to be part of a community is an ever-present scanning for danger. Unless the community is well established as a safe space we will sense potential threat in these forums. In life, this layer might be good friends, but in the workplace, you don’t get to choose this group. And although ‘danger’ in voicing out ideas might not pose physical threat, our brains can’t necessarily decipher the difference, and we hold back to protect ourselves.

It’s one of the reasons why when it comes to meaningful input, I’m a big advocate of groups sizes being around 5 people. At this layer, contribution doesn’t need to be engineered, it happens organically. Watch for this in your own interactions. In small group sizes if someone is quiet, people will invite them in without the need for a ‘host’ to make it happen. Although someone may lead the agenda, communication is spread across the group, and due to the smaller number, it’s more free and ‘bursty’ in nature -with interruptions feeling dynamic and adding momentum instead of being disruptive or awkward. I started to think more consciously about how I wanted interactions with this smaller group size to work, and deliberately allocating decisions and collaboration to these smaller groups not only worked better, it gave me a genuine mood boost that made me feel happier about my work.

So, make everything happen in groups of 5? Problem solved? Well…. No… 5 people isn’t enough to get enough diversity of thought. Especially for big decisions. That’s where the next layers can work wonders. Whilst I’d keep decision making and actions to the smaller group, inviting opinions from larger group sizes (even if not through meetings but messages/surveys etc) helped me feel that I had challenged any initial assumptions and reached more robust, informed conclusions. ‘Systems-thinking’ is a core topic for leaders, and ensuring multiple views are taken into account means involving multiple layers of Dunbar’s number. But key to this is knowing the layers will function in different ways, and the roles of individuals will be different at 5, 15 and 50 people.

So as a concept, it’s not complex. In fact, it makes a lot of common sense. But being intentional about how to engage with different group sizes has definitely paid off for me.