Solve Communication Complexity With Networks Of Small Teams

Joost Minnaar
Written by Joost Minnaar August 08, 2020

Work is solving other people’s problems. Most progressive companies on our Bucket List think they do that best when structured as networks of teams, rather than hierarchical pyramids. Teams in radically decentralized networks are often self-managed and highly autonomous. And these teams are often very small. They rarely consist of more than 15 people. But why are self-managed teams in these networks typically so small? There are very good reasons.

They have to do with Metcalfe's Law, and the structure of the human mind—which has evolved such that we suck at handling large numbers of relationships.

Work is solving other people’s problems. Most progressive companies think they do that best when structured as networks of teams, rather than hierarchical pyramids.
Click to tweet

Metcalfe's Law

Let’s start with Metcalfe's law, originally presented around 1980 by Robert Metcalfe. He was an Internet/Ethernet pioneer, and his law captures many of the effects of such networks.

It says that the effect of a (telecommunications) network is proportional to the square of the number of connected devices. Which also explains why networks like the Internet have become so powerful. Simply, a network's value increases exponentially with size. That is, the more people using it, the more their participation enhances it.

This exponential growth is generally considered a good thing. Especially in digital networks.

From digital to social

But Metcalfe's law has another side, especially when it comes to social interactions. Imagine how Metcalfe's law translates easily to the social dynamics at play between team members.

1709 1140x0

So, for a team increasing from three to four team members, although there is only one more person, the number of efficient communication lines suddenly doubles from 3 to 6.

Similarly, imagine being in a team of five team members. Here there are 10 such communication lines at play. But double the number of team members to ten, and you suddenly have a complex network of 45 communication lines.

As more people try to communicate with each other, the number of interactions increases immensely. Here we hit a problem—our brain simply can't handle this.

Limitations of the mind

The structure of the mind is that it can't really handle very large numbers of relationships. Scientists like Robin Dunbar have told us for decades that our social world is very small-scale.

They say there are approximately 5 people we can have tight relationships with, and another 15 people we can have slightly less intense relationships with. Think of sports teams, for example. They are rarely being bigger than 15 people.

The same principles apply in business and management. There are natural limits to the number of people we can communicate, coordinate and perform with. There are limits to the number of colleagues you happily drink coffee with, and even fewer that you invite over for dinner.

Book

Transaction costs

Communicating, coordinating and contracting take place in all organizations. And these interactions should take place as efficiently as possible, because they are hidden costs. Academics call them transaction costs.

Many decades ago, organizations invented hierarchies (including the role of ‘middle manager’) to solve this problem. Managers were installed to lower transaction costs inside organizations. As they did so, they took these tasks away from front-line employees, and reduced costs.

Two problems

There are two things that make the ‘inventing’ of managers (and their spans of control) problematic.

First, the wellbeing of the front-line employees: they did not benefit much from this change. Most people don’t like to be stripped of tasks like communication and coordination. It didn't really motivate or engage front line staff.

Second, the possibilities that digital technologies brought to internal communications meant transaction costs of one-to-one and one-to-many interactions dropped basically to zero. This questions the manager's role from a 'transaction cost' perspective.

Conclusion

One result is evident in the progressive organizations. They have departed far from traditional managerial hierarchies. Instead, they structure themselves as decentralized networks of teams.

As more people try to communicate with each other, the number of interactions increases immensely. Here we hit a problem—our brain simply can't handle this.
Click to tweet

These networks have no (or few) middle managers. They feature highly autonomous teams where members take care of communication, coordination and contracting themselves.

But as Metcalfe's Law shows, when there are no managers, teams must be small. And small enough that members do not get overloaded with communication and information which our brains can't handle!

Written by Joost Minnaar
Joost Minnaar
Co-founder Corporate Rebels. My daily focus is on research, writing, and anything else related to making work more fun.
Read more
Read more
Apr 29, 2023
Scaling Up with Amoeba Management: The Inspiring Story of Kazuo Inamori
Joost Minnaar Written by Joost Minnaar
This month, I immersed myself in the story of Kazuo Inamori. The tale of how he founded and scaled Kyocera into a multinational is both…
Read more about Scaling Up with Amoeba Management: The Inspiring Story of Kazuo Inamori
Apr 05, 2023
4 Key Ways to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing in a Highly Decentralized Organization
Pim de Morree Written by Pim de Morree
A few weeks ago, we finally had the lovely opportunity to visit a pioneering firm that's been on our Bucket List for quite some time. And…
Read more about 4 Key Ways to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing in a Highly Decentralized Organization
Mar 25, 2023
Revolutionizing Hierarchy: How Community-Led Practices are Disrupting Line Management
Perttu Salovaara Written by Perttu Salovaara
Instead of self-management, Columbia Road, the digital sales agency based in Finland, replaces traditional hierarchy with community-led…
Read more about Revolutionizing Hierarchy: How Community-Led Practices are Disrupting Line Management
Mar 22, 2023
The Decentralisation Paradox Of Flat Companies
Joost Minnaar Written by Joost Minnaar
As you may know by now, many of the Bucket List organizations we visited are structured as a Network of Teams—that is, they do not rely on…
Read more about The Decentralisation Paradox Of Flat Companies
Jan 14, 2023
The Rise of Autonomous Organizations: The End of the Middle Manager?
Joost Minnaar Written by Joost Minnaar
For our latest "Bucket List" tour, we traveled all the way to the other side of the world—specifically, Japan. We toured the country for…
Read more about The Rise of Autonomous Organizations: The End of the Middle Manager?
Nov 23, 2022
When the Agile Approach Just Isn’t Enough
Grzegorz Kuczynski Written by Grzegorz Kuczynski
This is a story about a company with 400+ people searching for their ultimate organizational design, moving beyond agile approaches into a…
Read more about When the Agile Approach Just Isn’t Enough
Read all articles

Download: Free Guide

Unlock our in-depth guide on trends, tools, and best practices from over 150 pioneering organizations.

Subscribe below and receive it directly in your inbox.

    We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.