I’ve noticed a pattern among my clients. Many of them are small software companies with good ideas that are growing rapidly. When they first call me, they have approximately 150 employees. I’ve often wondered, what is it that triggers a problem — and a call to an outsider — at 150 employees?
Then I discovered Dunbar’s number and the pattern started to make sense. Robin Dunbar, a British anthropologist, is an expert on the social lives of monkeys. (Wouldn’t you love to have a job like that?) Dunbar made an interesting observation: Monkeys with small brains have small social circles. Monkeys with larger brains have larger social circles. Actually, it’s not total brain size — it’s the size of the neocortex, the area of the brain where we do our abstract reasoning. In Dunbar’s charts, you’ll find a distinct up-and-to-the-right relationship between the size of the neocortex (relative to the rest of the brain) and the size of the social group.
So, you might wonder, how does this affect the lives of large-brained primates known as humans? How big is our “natural” social group? Funny you should ask. Dunbar frames the question this way: what’s the largest number of people in which it’s possible for everyone to know each other and also to know how everyone relates to everyone else? The answer is slippery but it seems to be around 150 people (plus or minus, oh, say 30).
If you search the topic on the web, you’ll find a number of observers arguing for a higher number. (I didn’t find any arguing for a lower number). On the other hand, you’ll also find observers who claim that 150 occurs frequently and “naturally” in traditional societies. Apparently, the Roman Legions were divided into companies of 150 men. Church parishes in 18th century England contained 150 people. If your parish grew bigger, the bishop would campaign for an additional church.
How does Dunbar’s number affect organizations? Generally speaking, a smaller organization can be fairly loosey-goosey. We all know each other and we all know how we relate to each other. We don’t need a lot of structure. Above 150, however, organizations start to get more bureaucratic. According to Wikipedia, “…analysts assert that organizations with populations of people larger than Dunbar’s number … generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms, to maintain a stable, cohesive group.”
Maybe this is why companies call me when they reach about 150 employees. They’re growing up and they’re feeling the growing pains. It’s not as simple as it used to be. In fact, it’s getting rather complicated. I hope they keep calling me. I’m becoming a bit of a specialist.
You can find Dunbar’s original article here.
We already know that culture eats strategy for breakfast. If your strategy doesn’t map to your culture, … well, culture always wins. The
first thing you need to do as a leader is to understand exactly what your culture is. What behaviors do your employees value? Who do they look up to? Who do they follow? Leaders who don’t understand the current culture (as can happen when an outsider is brought in) are almost always doomed to failure.
Let’s say that you do understand the culture but you need to change the strategy in ways that will conflict with the culture. Can you do it? Yes, but only if you change the culture first. Fortunately, you can change a culture. It takes time and requires a firm grasp of human nature, but you can do it. The first thing to remember is that you have to lead the way. You can’t just say, “stop doing what you were doing and do something new.” You have to start by behaving the way you want others to behave. If you’re a good leader, your employees will model their behavior on yours. The atmosphere will change. The culture will change.
There are a few other things you need to do as well. You can find them in the video.
Does the past predict the future? We like to think it does. That’s why we study history. We look for patterns in the past and for connections between events. We then project these into the future. If A caused B in the past, it’s likely that A will again cause B in the future.
Unfortunately, it’s not quite that easy. First of all, it’s extremely hard to demonstrate cause-and-effect in the past. In fact, the only way to conclusively prove cause-and-affect is the experimental method and (fortunately or unfortunately) history is not an experiment. We may think we discern patterns in the past but we may just be wrong. As Mark Twain said, “In the real world, nothing ever happens when or where it should. It’s up to historians to fix that.”
Second, even if we can show cause-and-effect in the past, there’s no guarantee that it will happen again in the future. Things just aren’t that simple. Attitudes may change. New variables may intervene. Stuff happens. Time and again, we’ve shown that experts can’t predict the future — even in their areas of expertise — any better than throwing darts.
So, should we just give up? Well, no. Even though we can’t predict the future, we can prepare for it. We just have to imagine multiple possibilities. There are multiple ways that the future could play out. All we have to do is imagine them. Fortunately, there’s a structured way to do that. It’s called scenario planning and it’s the subject of the video.
Now that I’m older and wiser, I’m going back to re-read some of the classics in the leadership literature to see if I can tease out new meanings. Daniel Goleman’s article, “What Makes A Leader?” in Harvard Business Review (1998) is a case in point. We’ve all heard the term “emotional intelligence” but how many of us really remember what it means? How many of us know how to practice the art?
For many male leaders, I think “emotional intelligence” evokes something feminine. Perhaps it’s similar to “soft power” in diplomacy. It’s not a bad thing but is it really crucial? If my company gets in trouble, would I rather have soft power or a cadre of kick-ass sales people who can close deals and generate revenue?
If you read Hanna Rosin’s new book, The End of Men, you may think of emotional intelligence in a new light. Rosin argues that the new economy — largely services rather than manufacturing — requires skills such as flexibility, empathy, self-control, and persuasion. Rosin argues that women are better at these skills than men and that’s why they’re accelerating past men and taking over entire professions like accountancy, pharmacy, and forensic pathology.
Though Rosin doesn’t use the term “emotional intelligence”, the differentiating skills she describes map very closely to Goleman’s five elements of EI. These are: 1) Self-awareness – knowing one’s strengths and weaknesses, and their impact on others; 2) Self-regulation — controlling disruptive emotions; 3) Motivation — being driven to achieve for the sake of achievement; 4) Empathy — considering other’s feelings; and, 5) Social skill — managing relationships to move people in desired directions.
Goleman says that these skills are essential to good leadership. Rosin says women are better at them than men are. If they’re both correct, we need to re-think at least some of our leadership development curricula. We also have a fair amount of re-training to do — perhaps mainly of male executives. Fortunately, Goleman provides exercises that will help anyone — male or female — practice and develop these skills.
You can learn more in the video. You can find Goleman’s article here and Rosin’s book here.
We buy my wife, Suellen, a new car every ten years whether she needs one or not. It’s always a red Volkswagen convertible with a manual transmission. (She’s old school). We bought the first one in 1985, another one in 1995, and the current one in 2005. She just looks cute in a red convertible.
What struck me about these three cars was how power was deployed. The 1985 model had roll-up windows and a manually operated roof. The ’95 had power windows and a manual roof. The ’05 has both power windows and a power roof. The 2005 model is clearly more energy efficient than the ’85 model but does it use less energy?
I didn’t know it at the time but I had struck on something called Jevons paradox (also known as the rebound effect). Named after William Stanley Jevons (pictured), a British economist in the mid-19th century, the paradox states that increasing energy efficiency leads to greater energy use. It’s basically a cost curve. Increased energy efficiency means each unit of energy costs less. As costs decline, we buy more energy — just as we do with most commodities.
The result: instead of raising and lowering the convertible’s roof with arm power, we put in a little motor to do it for us. According to Jevons, the net effect is that we use more energy rather than less.
I’ll admit that I’m a tree hugger and that I’m concerned about global warming. I also study the processes of innovation and I generally applaud innovations that result in greater energy efficiency. But the more I ponder Jevons paradox, I wonder if we’ve aimed our innovations at the wrong target. Shouldn’t we be creating innovations that help us use less energy rather than more?
(If you want to read more about Jevons paradox, The New Yorker has a terrific article here. On the other hand, Think Progress says the paradox exists in theory but not in practice. That article is here. Interesting reading).