How Big Should a Network Be? Part 2: Thoughts on Dunbar Numbers
About a year ago, I ran a post asking how big a business referral network should be. Steve Shue, always helpful, posted a comment with links to discussions about Dunbar Numbers. Anthropologist Robin Dunbar hypothesized that a person could maintain around 150 stable relationships. Other estimates from other studies generally fall in this order of magnitude, though electronic communications may increase the number.
I have thought about Dunbar Numbers ever since and have some observations about them. First, definitions of “stable” may vary in different circumstances. For example, an auditor may only count client relationships that last many years as stable, but a professional who does many small projects, say a competitive intelligence consultant, may describe some relationships that last less than five years with the same word.
Second, not all relationships in a network are stable. We need to sort through several unstable relationships to find each one that becomes stable. Because the competitive intelligence consultant has a higher turnover rate in his core, stable network, he needs a larger pool of total relationships than the auditor does, in order to winnow through enough unstable relationships to keep sufficient stable ones. In my experience professionals with evergreen services generally don’t have networks as large as those who sell project work.
Third, when a person first deliberately starts to build a network, she must winnow through a large number of unstable relationships to do so. Also, in my experience, people building a practice must actively work larger networks than those who are well established.
Fourth, we do not look for stability in every relationship. It is quite possible to network with a person for a few months or years and then find that mutual benefit from doing so declines. Networks are full of special cases for special purposes, such as the person an architect networks with to pursue work in a specific distant location once or twice in a career.
All of this is a long way of making the point that to have a good referral network, you probably need to know more people than you think you do.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Hey Ford,
I’m not sure where this fits, but didn’t malcolm gladwell have much to say about the value of the “casual aquaintance”? Though i believe it related to ‘new employment’ it still seems to have good application in some businesses — especially those that are often, or become transactional rather than always consultive. Indeed, some detailed consultive relationships begin that way, only to become somewhat tranactional in follow-up years later. Anyway, i don’t believe “size of network” applies the same to all professions, all networks, or even multi-networks. 150 will be far too small for some, and too large for others.
David E. Rockett
The Charitable Steward
318.237.1229
agsteward@juno.com
December 9th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
David:
Gladwell was referring to Mark Granovetter’s theory of “The Strength of Weak Ties.” It is absolutely applicable to business referral networks.
Ford Harding
December 11th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Ford,
I’m not sure this is a relevant question. By defining an appropriate network size, you give someone the excuse to stop networking once they hit that finish line. For better/worse networks are dynamic - contacts move/get laid-off/retire. In this economy, I don’t know how anyone could begin to categorize their stable vs. unstable relationships (plus I have received many referrals from “unstable” contacts).
Instead of trying to predict how many stable relationships are needed at the end of the day, is it better to focus on how many unstable relationships can be made and marginally maintained?
Mike
December 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
How to apply the Dunbar number and/or adapt it for contexts outside of it’s original context is an interesting area, and I think you are right about always seeking to know more people than you think you need to know.
How people leverage technology and other people are other interesting areas. I am reminded of a real estate agent who is one of the top performers in the Midwest. She maintains a huge network of contacts via Facebook (1000s?). I also believe that she heavily uses personal assistants to set up calls, handle holiday cards, gather value-add material, etc. to keep herself connected.
Best,
Steve
December 12th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Mike and Steve:
You make a valid point. Perhaps I should have stated my question differently. I am frequently asked by people learning to network how big their network needs to be. I think it unresponsive to say simply as big as possible. I am trying to give them some sense of the numbers they will need in order to gain some control over their lead flow. This is ultimately a probablistic question, to which there can be no definitive answer but some sort of guidance is called for.
Ford Harding