4 ms·
The idea that there is a certain "natural" size to groups of people reminds me of the Monkeysphere essay: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
by jcl 19y ago
The idea that there is a certain "natural" size to groups of people reminds me of the Monkeysphere essay:
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
The size of a monkeysphere is estimated to be 150 people, which is quite a bit larger than the 10-person group Paul advocates, but I guess you need to know at least a few people outside of work. :)
I wonder if the problem with large corporations is that you don't care about the other people in them or that you feel the other people don't care about you? Certainly the people in the highest positions can't care about everyone under them -- assuming they can only care about 150 people -- so perhaps that is the limiting factor of effective size.
- dfranke 19y ago150 is the maximum, not the optimum. It's just a really big safety margin.
- toffer 19y agoThe "monkeysphere" is more commonly known as Dunbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number)...though Wong's essay is much funnier than the Wikipedia article.
- pg 19y agoDunbar's number is a limit on the size of a society, not on the size of a group that can work together to complete a task.
- imperator 19y agoSo one might say that an optimal size of a business is 150 - family members - external to business friends - significant acquaintances. With various employees being more or less numerically involved in a company.