(Natural Human Instinct or Behaviour (9) cont. 5)
5. Social Belonging

Introduction
Humans are social animals, not loner, so you need a sense of identity; there are 3 group sizes people prefer to be, ie 4 for informal discussions; 7 for families or teams; 150 for organisations.
More detail on each:
     a) around 4 for informal discussion (a group of 4 is ideal for a discussion group, ie everyone feels they have a chance of being heard; if a new person arrives, usually one leaves or the group splits into two; conversations in informal groups or settings can provide much valuable information).
    b) team/group of around 7 (plus or minus 2) is like a family; this helps explain why teams of around 7 members are the most effective; furthermore, 7 is the average capacity of the working memory of the brain, eg you can remember a 7 digit phone number easier than 8+ digits.
"...seven or so people as a group is the size that can best create a sense of intimacy..."
Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011
On Facebook, it has been found that most people have around 7 closest contacts; female have a higher number of contacts than males.
People prefer to stand in groups between 4 and 8, ie natural 'grooming' numbers for gossip.
NB
"...people want to work in a functional team where they are secure in their relationships with each other and confident in support the leader gives them..."
Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011
This has been described as 'like a family'. However, it is different, ie family paradox (in a family you can speak with more candour than in a team, ie less sensitivity and more direct in a family than a team, eg telling an individual he/she smells in a family is a lot easier than in a team!!!!!)
      c) organisations of around 150 are like a clan/village (provides a sense of identity and a unit to maximise the chance of survival, ie defence against predators, sharing duties, sharing resources such as food, etc:
"...group size is related to the size of the human brain. Our brain size allows us to associate with groups of up to around 150..."
Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011
To handle living in complex social groups demands a significant amount of intellect or brain power.
"...humans have the biggest brain per body size of any animal on the planet......the brain per body ratio of humans correlates to a community size of 150, which is indeed the size of primitive, or natural, human groups..."
Robin Dunbar as quoted by Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011
Evidence that supports the '150':
- on Facebook the average number of friends in network is 120
- for most people, a list of friends and acquaintance will total around 150.
(main source: Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011)
Our brains are not capable of managimg the social and political complexity in an organisation of more than 150; as you get nearer to the 150, the complexity and problems grow exponentially. For example, if an organisation grows to 150+, competing silos will form, with loyalty stronger to the silo than the organisation. In fact, anybody outside the silo is regarded as a stranger; there is an inherent fear of strangers, ie mostly they mean no good; this can result in territorial disputes, competing claims over resources, etc as
"...a 'them and us' occurs within the organisation, usually on geographical, functional or business unit lines..."
Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011
"...we become protective of our own in-group, we battle for resources, we talk disparagingly of the other department and conflicts can be more emotional with intra-organisation groups that we should by rights be friends with..."
Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011)
Challenging group size
If the change, such as an organisational restructure, is going impact these basic social belonging groups, ie ('7' and '150'), this needs to be handled carefully.
"...we can create structures where the organisation uses group size advantageously. If we design our organisations according to human instinct, we will harness natural and energy. If we ignore human nature, there is a good chance we will design dysfunction into the system..."
Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011
Integration (individuals and groups)
When introducing new members there is a need to quickly move from stranger, ie out-group status, to new member status, ie in-group status. This means
"...having equipment and space ready for the person on their first day, of informal introductions to break the ice, of providing clarity about the group's purpose and values and facilitate the new person becoming an immediate contributor to the group's purpose..."
Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011
The leader should take the lead in the integration as integration of different groups is hard and needs to start from the top, ie leaders.
Freeloaders and social rejection
"...on the savannah plains stranded alone or with just your family without group support would most likely be catastrophic..."
Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011
This is reflected in modern times when managers need to handle poor performers and/or dismissals; it is one of the hardest things a manager, as a social animal, has to do.
Some ways to discipline a difficult member of the group include:
- ignore the person, ie treat them like a non-person
- ostracise them, ie nobody co-operates with them
- terminate them, ie expel them from the group
- execute, ie kill them
(source: Christopher Boehm as quoted by Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011)
Ideally you should try to correct their behaviour rather than terminating
"...social control......is offered about pro-socially orientated manipulation of deviants so that they once more contribute usefully to the group life..."
Christopher Boehm as quoted by Andrew O'Keeffe, 2011
Examples
Some examples that successfully use the 'family, village, tribe' strategy are Flight Centre, Gore Associate, Genghis Khan (Mongol warlord who captured most of the known world in the 13th century), etc.