By Jeff Bell.
We are arguably the most connected humans of all time. We can point to measures such as followers and contacts in various social media platforms. We may have demonstrable links to thousands, hundreds of thousands and even millions.
These are useful for marketing and sales or polling and voting. When we know that we have 5000 followers, to whom we send a message every month, we may rely on a 20% uptake. When these people ask for more information and this leads onto a conversation, we may have converted 10% of the total into an actual purchase event.
We may find, in the interpersonal context, these to be gratifying numbers.
But what of the nature of those connections? Are they anything beyond a sales opportunity? How “sticky” are they?
Moreover, are they actual relationships? That is,in which an individual knows everyone else and how each person relates to each other.
It may not surprise you to know that this an entirely different matter.
But do you know that someone has done the math on this and has come up with a number that you may find surprising? It’s 150.
This is Dunbar’s Number–a measurement of the cognitive limit to the number of individuals with whom any one person can maintain a stable relationship. It was devised in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar and has been a useful reference since.
Dunbar looked at groupings of people through the ages, from villages, tribes, settlements, soldiers, groupings of academics and business workgroups. Each of these groups had a strong reason to remain cohesive–food procurement, defence, income generation, learning, teaching, prosperity.
How did Dunbar arrive at this number and what is the composition of the 150? Dunbar posits 5 concentric circles, starting with the innermost:
- Intimate–of which there is 1, or maybe 2.
- Besties–the people who we would drop anything to support. 5 of these.
- Core crew–those who you would entrust to look after your kids. 10 of these.
- Good friends–those who you would comfortably invite to a barbeque at your home. 35 of these (about the number in the image above).
- Friends–those who you would happily invite to your wedding or the funeral of a family member (or perhaps your own). 100 of those.
OK, so not exactly 150, but an approximate mean.
Significantly, these individuals are not necessarily related to us. Our selection of them in any of the 5 circles is a function of behaviour and therefore interest and trust, rather than formal or blood ties.
The number, of course, has social implications–when we consider our own trusted networks.
If we were in fact to populate each of these circles with the names of the people in our lives, what would the model look like? Who would be in each circle?
I recommend that each of us draws up the model and populates it accordingly. It may provide some startling clarity and help us to spend our precious interactive time more productively.
In Dunbar’s research, it was people under some sort of threat, and in close physical proximity who approximated the 150. In a safe, prosperous and dispersed society such as Australia, our own group may be somewhat smaller.
And what of the implications for business structure and organisation?
In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell cites the makers of Gore-Tex who found that 150 employees represented the point at which social problems became intractable. They would then hive off a new entity at a nearby location.
Business and military situations require collaboration and cohesion of the group often under extreme pressure.
This may not be a requirement of our social network of 150.
In Australia, there are 65,000 businesses that approximate this number of employees–the medium-sized enterprise. This may have a reflection on the Dunbar’s number–in terms of how many we can successfully lead and who can generate sufficient wealth for all.
In a recent article, Dunbar re-calibrated: an inner core of 5 with whom we spend 40% of our social time and another 10 people who occupy an additional 20%–is this more realistic?
What do your personal or business circles look like?