Data On Your Friends
On average we have 5 best friends, 15 good friends, 50 friends, and 150 meaningful relationships (max).
According to the research published in SAGE Journals, the time correlation to the level of friendship:
(Starting Status -> Ending Status = Total Time Required To Move Friendship Status)
Acquaintance -> Casual Friend = 50 hours
Casual Friend -> Friend = 90 hours
Friend -> Best Friend = 200 hours
Hours matter, but how that time is spent is equally important, along with ongoing investment of additional time and energy. I thought this could be interesting from a work perspective. We’re around colleagues for years, but likely still consider most of them acquaintances. Can we apply these data points to help develop cohesive culture, trust, and shared passion?
This research affirms ways we can develop more meaningful relationships, strengthen future professional networks, expose ourselves to diverse perspectives, reduce communication friction, spark opportunities between people and teams, and so on. Or simply be a decent human being. Below are the key research points and the applications of the findings to our work.
1. We can have a maximum of ~150 friends due to cognitive and temporal constraints—we have a finite amount of time and attention.
We won’t become best friends with everyone we work with, and depending on company size, we may not even become casual friends. But to foster a better environment, we should take the time to reach out to other groups, or help connect people or teams where we observe gaps or dissonance, to help humanize and improve understanding and collaboration. Grab lunch with someone you don't know, or incentivize these inter-department interactions in your company by subsidizing meals between disparate teams.
2. It’s possible to know someone for years and not develop friendship, or to know someone for 6 months and become best friends.
The study noted “clicking” with new people as a measurable phenomenon, so for example, first impressions and gut feeling of an interview candidate may have significance. Subjectively, I have a strong bias to develop teams that like and care about each other, since that's my personal preference. Perhaps more important than hiring primarily for experience and skill, to balance IQ/EQ, we should build teams that are complimentary from a personality, passion, curiosity, aspiration, and work ethic standpoint, with supplementary backgrounds and perspectives to bridge deficiencies and offer diverse and novel thoughts.
3. Time spent outside of the environment we meet people, especially joint leisure activities, increase closeness.
When we option to spend time with each other outside of work, we’re choosing to shift the relationship context. In doing so, we show willingness to budget precious time for the purpose of relationship development and upkeep. I believe organic, unofficial time spent outside of work is important to foster team cohesion. If this doesn’t happen naturally, it may benefit the team to dedicate work hours to shift the relationship context, especially early on in a team’s development, or to welcome new team members. When I interview candidates outside of the office--to change the interaction context--there tends to be better-rounded conversations. I've been criticized for this approach, but I favor unorthodox processes and am interested in others' perspectives on this topic.
4. Time spent talking together is not associated with friendship closeness. Meaningful conversation, catching up, joking around, affectionate communication, and otherwise talking at greater depth increases relationship development. Small talk will decrease closeness over time if conversations remain superficial.
Most conversations at work have to be about work, but in caring about the people we work with, we should take the time to know and communicate with each other as human beings than corporate automatons. The need to understand personal context is especially true for leaders of people, since I believe the division between work life and personal life is an imaginary construct. Those two realities bleed deeply into each other, and both need to be healthy and supported from all ends. My interpretation doesn't stop with asking about the kids or your latest vacation. Crafting calculated communications to downplay issues can signal a lack of trust in your people, making you or your company appear insincere, or worse. Being candid with each other, perhaps especially in tough times, drives past superficial communication and demonstrates a genuine care for others. No sugar-coating or filtering, just honest conversations. "I screwed up. I don't know. It's a mess, but this is what I know and how I think we should move forward. What are your thoughts? Let's fix it together."
______________________________
