Organize like humans: keep groups small and connected

There’s a reason the best friendships form on a floor in a dorm or on a small team. Our brains comfortably track about 150 meaningful relationships. Past that, faces blur, and bureaucracy creeps in. Big isn’t bad, it just demands different design.

When teams balloon, decisions slow and politics rise because people don’t know each other well enough to risk a bold ask. One manager noticed her 600‑person department spent more time aligning on slides than solving customer issues. She split the org into four pods of about 150 with clear missions, then set squads of 8–12 to do the work. Names replaced org codes on the wall. You could hear the difference—more first names, fewer acronyms.

They added monthly cross‑pod meetups to share what worked and what didn’t. A liaison from each pod traded two insights and one cautionary tale. The vibe got friendlier and faster. A micro‑anecdote: two designers who had never met before found out they were duplicating prototypes and merged efforts in a day.

Belonging is measurable. Every quarter they asked, ‘Do you know who has your back?’ and ‘Would you recommend this team to a friend?’ Scores improved, and so did output. The biology is straightforward: smaller, stable groups raise oxytocin and trust, which encourages information sharing and risk‑taking. I might be wrong, but most ‘alignment problems’ are really architecture problems.

The model: keep units under about 150 for cohesion, build squads for delivery, and create friendly bridges between pods. You’ll reduce friction without losing scale.

Map where your group is larger than 150 and where ties are weak, then split into pods with clear missions and squads of 8–12 to deliver work. Add cross‑pod meetups and liaison roles so learning spreads, and measure belonging each quarter with simple questions so you can tune the structure. You’ll likely hear more names and see faster decisions. Start by drawing your current map on a single page.