Read on Twitter
I think how Agile folks apply and reason about Dunbar's Number is precarious.
It's right enough to be useful.
Seems wrong enough to easily become dangerous.
Disclaimer: I don't claim to know the research, I only claim to offer a more useful lens consistent with my experience.
It's right enough to be useful.
Seems wrong enough to easily become dangerous.
Disclaimer: I don't claim to know the research, I only claim to offer a more useful lens consistent with my experience.
The key insight about how humans have for evolutionary reasons a within reason well defined cognitive ability towards social connection and trust.
It's what's made us successful and it's also a key concern when doing org design at any level.
We must embrace our humanness.
It's what's made us successful and it's also a key concern when doing org design at any level.
We must embrace our humanness.
Where I think agilists tends to go wrong is that we use the "5,15,50,150" sequence wrongly in two ways, we simplify it to "individuals" and we "forget" people have relationships outside "work".
I'll focus on the first here because I think it's the more interesting one.
I'll focus on the first here because I think it's the more interesting one.
People rightly is the focus of Agile, but sometimes to really do the best for people we must lift ourselves to think about systems. We say that often, and forget it almost instantly in many cases.
I think the unit of connection should be though of like "social units" not people.
I think the unit of connection should be though of like "social units" not people.
If we think "social unit" we readily explain phenomena like people trusting/treatin "someone in another team", "stackoverflow" and "NuGet/npm/Maven/<your package repo goes here>" roughly the same.
We can start understanding a range of social phenomena and what they give us.
We can start understanding a range of social phenomena and what they give us.
Essentially I think Dunbar's Numbers ought be viewed like our social working memory. We have them here slots, some got more, others have fewer. (I'm of the fewer variety)
But we also have different chunking power and techniques to help us scale (I do fairly well here).
But we also have different chunking power and techniques to help us scale (I do fairly well here).
Our tendency to anthropomorphize can thus be viewed as a chunking mechanism.
"Leadership" and "Leaders" similarly enables this.
Social Capital is very much about this.
It's about managing our social working memory, they're ways to manage cognitive load.
"Leadership" and "Leaders" similarly enables this.
Social Capital is very much about this.
It's about managing our social working memory, they're ways to manage cognitive load.
This is what "culture", brands, and tribal tendencies are all about.
We can only handle so many social connection units, so we chunk them.
Scaling by necessity makes us less personal, because we can't handle all individuals. Not for a lack of want, but because limits.
We can only handle so many social connection units, so we chunk them.
Scaling by necessity makes us less personal, because we can't handle all individuals. Not for a lack of want, but because limits.
