I think he is (it is unsurprisingly and scarily big though).
This section specifically covers our core part of making calls. But of course context is king so there’s more in there that is relevant.
I’ll try to go into the more organizational part now and think out loud a good deal, so again - please feel free to shoot things down. I’ll just plug this lecture on the social mind here, that I really like - but I’ll try to write in a way that doesn’t rely on it. Also when it comes to teaming and getting things done I had a really good vibe talking to Noshir Contractor on the topic. My guess is that I am in overwhelming agreement with his positions (he put out a lot more than I could even read - so I can’t be sure).
First I want to put 3 provocations:
- Good outcomes don’t equal good communications / relations at all times.
A failed team and horrible experience can be necessary for some developments. As a species we don’t necessarily perform best in circumstances we are comfortable in (and we’re obsessed with reproduction most of the time. Thanks, genes.). A lot of things go through a “if I had known it gets this bad I never would have…”. Note that this is not an excuse, it is a recipe for disaster (and some disasters can be good). - Generally projects aren’t constant (neither are people).
The communication format should likely change over time to: ideally suit the subject matter at the stage, the individual participants, the group as a whole, the need for external involvement, the need to be inclusive or exclusive, or select for certain outcomes (including travel budgets). - The magic number is 5 (4.something really).
2.1 + something really. If you look at big (esp. technical) innovators, they rarely come solo. If it was so simple one person could pull it off, it would have been done already. You generally need 2 people with different skill sets, perspectives (and maybe motivations / psychological wiring) in a close trust relationship. “Close trust relationship” is probably an understatement of what happens at a cognitive level (thinking mirror neurons, etc.). As a species we have trouble connecting to more than 1-2 persons at the same most intimate level, at the same time. Data suggests that women in particular could pull off a group of 3, but I’d say even then rounding to 2.1 is probably optimistic.
The other 2.something? Those are 3 persons in the inner core that are the “executive organs” of the primary pair. 2 execs are not enough (because not everyone can’t always work well with one another - too few permutations), but 4 bring more cost than benefit (information transaction cost rises). You may sometimes go to 4 and beyond but you’ll more often be switching out 1 of the 3 extras. So you end up having less than 3 extras on average.
If this is correct we fairly easily cut much of the “general” communication problem down to size: We just have to make something that works well for groups of 5. Beyond that is likely not going to work very well with humans.
BUT we can thus already try to optimize collective intelligence to work well with groups of groups of 5. Nice problem-solution pair if you ask me.