Main Ideas
The Ideal Group Size
This is a bit geeky but you’ll find it to be quite handy. Some time ago, I was noodling on the idea of belonging as a math equation. It is. You can put it all together with variables and multipliers and come up with a solution. But I’m not at all qualified to write about that. However, after doodling with a few diagrams and doing simple math I am qualified to write about, I discovered something interesting. There is math that suggests a threshold regarding the potential for intimacy and generativity in group size. It’s six people. Between six and seven, the number of connections to manage between group members increases dramatically. Also, the corresponding capacity for direct involvement in each connection goes down dramatically, at least when the group is all together.
I experienced a great illustration of this when I invited five of my neighbor guys to get together. I had a direct connection with all of them. My neighbor Mark had a direct connection with two of them. We both knew, because of our direct connections, that those two had some conflict. When we all got together, Mark and I worked together, without saying anything about it, to offset the conflict and ease the mood of the group. This was done with subtle comments, body language, the nature of conversational topics and questions, a few jokes, and avoidance of political subjects. If the group had been larger, there may have been unknown conflicts that we might have accelerated rather than defused. The more people in a group, the more there is possibility for missed cues and misunderstandings - and the harder it is to re-orient to a positive direction.
This has some significant implications. First, when figuring out what size group you want, knowing that every person you add reduces the connection intensity is an important factor to consider. Knowing how big a reduction you get after six means you should avoid setting up groups of seven or more if you want to maximize connect-ability. Second, there will be a correlation between how much time it takes to develop strong connections and how many people are in the group. So, if you have a group you need to move toward stronger connection quickly, three or four is a better group size. If you are trying to generate new ideas and perspectives, five or six is better but introverted people will start loosing energy and getting quiet if group interaction is prolonged.
There are advantages and disadvantages to every group size. Multiple perspectives are more accessible with larger numbers but deeper connection takes longer. Deeper connections are easier to get to with smaller numbers but you’ll be more likely to reinforce the hive mind. This isn’t about the right size group or the wrong size group. It’s just worth knowing when you are planning.
- The larger the number of people in a group, the longer and harder it is to develop intimate connections.
- There is a threshold between six and seven people where connections go from 12 to 20 and involvement drops from 42% to 29%.
The Ideal Group Size
This is a bit geeky but you’ll find it to be quite handy. Some time ago, I was noodling on the idea of belonging as a math equation. It is. You can put it all together with variables and multipliers and come up with a solution. But I’m not at all qualified to write about that. However, after doodling with a few diagrams and doing simple math I am qualified to write about, I discovered something interesting. There is math that suggests a threshold regarding the potential for intimacy and generativity in group size. It’s six people. Between six and seven, the number of connections to manage between group members increases dramatically. Also, the corresponding capacity for direct involvement in each connection goes down dramatically, at least when the group is all together.
I experienced a great illustration of this when I invited five of my neighbor guys to get together. I had a direct connection with all of them. My neighbor Mark had a direct connection with two of them. We both knew, because of our direct connections, that those two had some conflict. When we all got together, Mark and I worked together, without saying anything about it, to offset the conflict and ease the mood of the group. This was done with subtle comments, body language, the nature of conversational topics and questions, a few jokes, and avoidance of political subjects. If the group had been larger, there may have been unknown conflicts that we might have accelerated rather than defused. The more people in a group, the more there is possibility for missed cues and misunderstandings - and the harder it is to re-orient to a positive direction.
This has some significant implications. First, when figuring out what size group you want, knowing that every person you add reduces the connection intensity is an important factor to consider. Knowing how big a reduction you get after six means you should avoid setting up groups of seven or more if you want to maximize connect-ability. Second, there will be a correlation between how much time it takes to develop strong connections and how many people are in the group. So, if you have a group you need to move toward stronger connection quickly, three or four is a better group size. If you are trying to generate new ideas and perspectives, five or six is better but introverted people will start loosing energy and getting quiet if group interaction is prolonged.
There are advantages and disadvantages to every group size. Multiple perspectives are more accessible with larger numbers but deeper connection takes longer. Deeper connections are easier to get to with smaller numbers but you’ll be more likely to reinforce the hive mind. This isn’t about the right size group or the wrong size group. It’s just worth knowing when you are planning.