4 ms·

Dunbar's number. I frequently quote 150 people as the breaking point, though it's a little less precise, and depends on the strength of the leader and organiza

Dunbar's number. I frequently quote 150 people as the breaking point, though it's a little less precise, and depends on the strength of the leader and organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

mortenjorck 13y ago
I should think a Dunbar-compatible company size would be well under 150 – Dunbar's number suggests the total number of people an individual can relate to at any point, so unless most of the employees have no relationships outside the office, I'd start at under half that. Incidentally, that would put the number around the 70 quoted in the grandparent comment.
- mathattack 13y ago
  Good point. CEOs tend to be good relators, so that biases the number up. They have to relate to a lot of externals, which would push the # down. My guess is salespeople would utilize most of their attention externally. Perhaps junior engineers internally? (This could also explain why it's economical for companies to pay for dinner and sponsor happy hours)
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  That 150 limit also involves your ability to keep track of people's relationships to eachother I think. Which would mean that you should be able to maintain relationships with significantly more people if they're divided into mostly-disjoint groups.
  - mathattack 13y ago
    Exactly - organizational hierarchy. :-) This is where the "There are no managers" can break down. Another area that organizations struggle with is spending the time to put the structure in. They may say, "It takes more effort to put in structure, so while we want to be structured, let's just work harder as we go from 150 to 250, we'll solve it later when we're less busy" Then it goes from 250 to 400, then the next thing you know it's a 1600 person mess. :-)
    - thibauts 13y ago
      What if you break the company in two companies (or more) ? The problem may be trying to keep a flat looking small pyramid look small, when it is in fact starting to show its real face. I don't know if it's even possible, but why not push a small group to become owners of their own shop, outsourcing work to them ? This might push those small groups to seek other connections to the external world and thus build strength and resiliency. Of course this implies giving up the money. This is probably where the core tension lies. I guess many wouldn't even want to think about it.
      - yuhong 13y ago
        I think michaelochurch has pushed for open allocation, which solves the main problem in a similar way.
      - weichi 13y ago
        It's a really interesting question, and one that economists have studied quite a bit - google "theory of the firm" for some details.
      - mathattack 13y ago
        This is the idea for divisional structures. P&G does this by letting their brands fight it out for resources, creating the spirit of independent companies. It worked out for a while, but eventually they found the right structure was by product category. (Soap the category versus Tide the brand) Semco (quoted elsewhere) was big on the "fund your best people's ideas" concept to cut loose companies. When you have to get external funding too, it forces discipline. The kerietsu (sp?) concept breaks down during tough times when partial owners subsidize the weaker units in the group. This happened in Japan. This isn't a simple problem, because there's no one size fits all solution.

mortenjorck 13y ago

I should think a Dunbar-compatible company size would be well under 150 – Dunbar's number suggests the total number of people an individual can relate to at any point, so unless most of the employees have no relationships outside the office, I'd start at under half that. Incidentally, that would put the number around the 70 quoted in the grandparent comment.

mathattack 13y ago
Good point. CEOs tend to be good relators, so that biases the number up. They have to relate to a lot of externals, which would push the # down. My guess is salespeople would utilize most of their attention externally. Perhaps junior engineers internally? (This could also explain why it's economical for companies to pay for dinner and sponsor happy hours)
tbrownaw 13y ago
That 150 limit also involves your ability to keep track of people's relationships to eachother I think. Which would mean that you should be able to maintain relationships with significantly more people if they're divided into mostly-disjoint groups.
- mathattack 13y ago
  Exactly - organizational hierarchy. :-) This is where the "There are no managers" can break down. Another area that organizations struggle with is spending the time to put the structure in. They may say, "It takes more effort to put in structure, so while we want to be structured, let's just work harder as we go from 150 to 250, we'll solve it later when we're less busy" Then it goes from 250 to 400, then the next thing you know it's a 1600 person mess. :-)
  - thibauts 13y ago
    What if you break the company in two companies (or more) ? The problem may be trying to keep a flat looking small pyramid look small, when it is in fact starting to show its real face. I don't know if it's even possible, but why not push a small group to become owners of their own shop, outsourcing work to them ? This might push those small groups to seek other connections to the external world and thus build strength and resiliency. Of course this implies giving up the money. This is probably where the core tension lies. I guess many wouldn't even want to think about it.
    - yuhong 13y ago
      I think michaelochurch has pushed for open allocation, which solves the main problem in a similar way.
    - weichi 13y ago
      It's a really interesting question, and one that economists have studied quite a bit - google "theory of the firm" for some details.
    - mathattack 13y ago
      This is the idea for divisional structures. P&G does this by letting their brands fight it out for resources, creating the spirit of independent companies. It worked out for a while, but eventually they found the right structure was by product category. (Soap the category versus Tide the brand) Semco (quoted elsewhere) was big on the "fund your best people's ideas" concept to cut loose companies. When you have to get external funding too, it forces discipline. The kerietsu (sp?) concept breaks down during tough times when partial owners subsidize the weaker units in the group. This happened in Japan. This isn't a simple problem, because there's no one size fits all solution.