How Many Friends Do You Really Need At Work?

Joost
Written by

An obvious and universal truth is that everyone needs friends in life. That we also need them at work should be a no-brainer.

For a start, friends are proven to be beneficial in improving our performance and overall well-being. And crucially, friends at work make it much more fun.

But the number of friends we need is a totally different question. A look at the research suggests there are some universal limits on friendship.

Let us share what we learned from the research—and from visiting the world´s most progressive workplaces.

Dunbar and friends

Diving into this topic brings you, sooner or later, to the work of British evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar (and his academic friends!). They speculated we only have the capacity to manage social relationships up to a certain number.

After extrapolating group sizes of primate communities and human society they estimated this number at around 150 people. This is the so-called Dunbar number. It gained attention in popular media and is sometimes said to be the limit of people one person can have close personal relationships with.

It also means 150 is the magic number for groups where everyone still knows each other well enough to maintain social contact. Dunbar found many examples: from ancient groups of hunter-gatherers, to military troops of the Spartans, in the Roman Empire, in 16th century Spain and in 20th century Soviet Union.

Dunbar's numbers

But 150 was not the only magic number Dunbar came up with. He identified a sequence of numbers that pointed to four layers in social groups; these being 5, 15, 50 & 150. These numbers represent layers of friends like the rings of an union.

article photo

Note the number of friends in each layer increases as we move up the hierarchy, and all are related by a factor of approximately three.

You should not, however, take the exact numbers too seriously. There is variance in the data. What the numbers stand for, however, needs to be taken much more seriously. Here we go:

5 extremely close friends

Dunbar and friends found there is, at any one time, a core group of extremely close friends with whom we share our strongest relationships. This first layer is of those we are closest to and care most about. This core group is only about 5 friends.

We have seen this number in practice as well. For example, in the maximum size of Handelsbanken's local branches (6 people) and maximum team size at Basecamp (3 people)

15 close friends

The second layer is a group of friends with whom you enjoy spending meaningful time, but who are not as intimate as your extremely close friends. These are friends you would invite to dinner at your home, or turn to in case of need.

This close group includes about 15 friends. We have seen this number in practice in, for example, the maximum size of Buurtzorg's self-organizing teams (12 people), the average size of Haier's microenterprises (circa 10-15 people), and the size of Spotify's "Squads" (circa 12 people).

50 friends

The third layer is made up of people you call friends but do not see that often. You might not invite them to dinner at your home, but you would invite them to a party.

This acquaintance group consist of about 50 friends. We saw this number in practice in the maximum size of the democratically run law firm BvdV (circa 30 people) and the average size of departments at Spotify called "Tribes" (circa 40 people).

150 casual friends

The final layer is a group you might refer to as casual friends. This layer defines more or less the limits of your personal social horizon as far as friendship is concerned. These are people whose names you know, and with whom remain in social contact.

This social group consists of about 150 friends. We see this number in practice, for example, in the maximum plant size at W.L. Gore & Assosciates (150 people), and the maximum size of departments at Spotify called "Tribes" (150 people).

Increasing group size beyond this number will result in significant loss of social stability, coherence and connectivity. Ultimately it will lead to disintegration of the group. And that is something you don't want to happen, as social relationships are integral to performance.

Your friends at work

Dunbar and his friends give us guidance in designing workplaces around the number of friends we can hold relationships with. Following their advice, we should keep teams small, and preferably between 5 and 15 people.

The same counts for departments, locations and plants. Keep them small, preferably around 50 people. But perhaps more importantly, never let your departments, locations or plants exceed the magic number!

Want more?

Want to dive into Dunbar’s academic work? Then read his book ‘How many friends does one person need?’, or try the landmark Science publication ‘Evolution in the Social Brain”.

But for now: what are your thoughts? Would splitting big departments into smaller ones help? Will smaller units help to boost motivation? Drop your thoughts in the comments below.

Joost
Written by Joost
3 weeks ago

Subscribe

Ready for more revolutionary content? Subscribe to the newsletter.


leave a reply

Replies (14)

JohnDBarns

JohnDBarns

I've worked in both start-ups and corporates and to me it makes a lot of sense. Because of size, we lose connection and precious relationships. Making units smaller brings back the human connection that we so desperately need.

By the way, can you share the link to the science publication?

| | 0 | Flag
Filippo

Filippo

How about sharing small workplace with people you hate or you don’t care about? That can happen in big or small companies. How can we work on that?

| | 0 | Flag
Michael

Michael

Interesting read. The guidance you mention reminds me of Eckart Wintzen's cell philosophy applied at his BSO/Origin company (well before it was acquired by Atos). Subsidiaries split in two whenever they reached 50 employees and each cell continued on its own. The "magic number" also confirms my experience that when people start losing oversight because they perceive the organization as being too large for them, bureaucracy and "us vs. them" rivalry or antagonism set in and accountability fades away (think f.i. of the "bystander apathy" phenomenon in larger crowds). So yes, smaller units are better for the organisation itself and for all stakeholders.

| | 0 | Flag
Joost

Joost

How about sharing small workplace with people you hate or you don’t care about? That can happen in big or small companies. How can we work on that?

Filippo

Fair point Filippo. Some of the companies (i.e. Buurzorg, Handelsbanken, Gore) mentioned in the article not only focus in small teams and small locations but also allow their employees to recruit and hire (and fire) their own team members. Note, in these companies teams have also end-to-end responsibility for their performance so they better make sure to recruit and hire team members that fit the team well...

| | 0 | Flag
Joost

Joost

Interesting read. The guidance you mention reminds me of Eckart Wintzen's cell philosophy applied at his BSO/Origin company (well before it was acquired by Atos). Subsidiaries split in two whenever they reached 50 employees and each cell continued on its own. The "magic number" also confirms my experience that when people start losing oversight because they perceive the organization as being too large for them, bureaucracy and "us vs. them" rivalry or antagonism set in and accountability fades away (think f.i. of the "bystander apathy" phenomenon in larger crowds). So yes, smaller units are better for the organisation itself and for all stakeholders.

Michael

You're right Michael. The cell philosophy of Wintzen fits the work of Dunbar very well. And although the Dutch BSO is not working in this way anymore, there are still quite some companies in the Netherlands that are working with some sort of cell splitting mechanism like Buurtzorg, TMC, Incentro, Finext, Rebel Group and Breman Group.

| | 0 | Flag
Joost

Joost

I've worked in both start-ups and corporates and to me it makes a lot of sense. Because of size, we lose connection and precious relationships. Making units smaller brings back the human connection that we so desperately need.

By the way, can you share the link to the science publication?

JohnDBarns

Here it is John: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5843/1344

| | 0 | Flag
Jenny

Jenny

What about if you don't need friends? Is there something wrong?

| | 0 | Flag
Joost

Joost

What about if you don't need friends? Is there something wrong?

Jenny

I don't know...

| | 0 | Flag
Filippo

Filippo

How about sharing small workplace with people you hate or you don’t care about? That can happen in big or small companies. How can we work on that?

| | 0 | Flag
Pim

Pim

How about sharing small workplace with people you hate or you don’t care about? That can happen in big or small companies. How can we work on that?

Filippo

How about letting people create their own teams? Give them the authority to hire and fire themselves, instead of HR and/or the boss?

| | 0 | Flag
Filippo

Filippo

Sounds great if you create a new company...

| | 0 | Flag
Pim

Pim

Sounds great if you create a new company...

Filippo

Or transform an existing one ;)

| | 0 | Flag
William Kerr

William Kerr

Are immediate family members part of the initial five (5) intimately close friends?

| | 0 | Flag
Joost

Joost

Are immediate family members part of the initial five (5) intimately close friends?

William Kerr

That could be. For some people that would be the case, for others not...

| | 0 | Flag
Flags are private, only visible to forum moderators. Be specific: "It's spam/off-topic/inappropriate because..."
submit

Leave a reply

The Corporate Rebels website is protected by reCAPTCHA (a Google service) which detects spam and bots. The Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. If you want to post something on our website, please accept cookies for this service.