3 ms·
Dunbar's Number seems to be the crux of Paul Graham's "You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss" without citing Dunbar's number. Just an observation. >What's so unnatu
by s_dev 9y ago
Dunbar's Number seems to be the crux of Paul Graham's "You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss" without citing Dunbar's number. Just an observation.
>What's so unnatural about working for a big company? The root of the problem is that humans weren't meant to work in such large groups.
>Another thing you notice when you see animals in the wild is that each species thrives in groups of a certain size. A herd of impalas might have 100 adults; baboons maybe 20; lions rarely 10. Humans also seem designed to work in groups, and what I've read about hunter-gatherers accords with research on organizations and my own experience to suggest roughly what the ideal size is: groups of 8 work well; by 20 they're getting hard to manage; and a group of 50 is really unwieldy. [1]
>Whatever the upper limit is, we are clearly not meant to work in groups of several hundred. And yet—for reasons having more to do with technology than human nature—a great many people work for companies with hundreds or thousands of employees.
- dahfizz 9y agoIsn't this solved by the organization structure of large companies? In a company of hundreds or thousands, nobody needs to know everyone else. You really only need to / should know your team of 5-20 and a small handfull of management above/below you. That way, it doesn't matter if you work for a company of 20 or 2000 because you only interact with a manageable subset of all employees.
- munin 9y agoThis is fine, except then your teams interactions with another team might as well be interactions with a competing company. This produces some behavior that can be difficult for outsiders (customers, the CEO, etc) to understand. So it works well as long as your teams don't interact. And if they don't interact, why do you have a 2000 person company?