Balancing Act: Navigating Work-Life Social Network Limits in Tech

This article explores the challenges tech professionals face in managing their social lives and work commitments. We dive into the concept of social group size from cognitive psychology research and how it impacts work-life balance, using real-world examples from engineering, product management, and design leaders. #worklifebalance, #techworklife, #techstress, #worklifeintegration, #productivityhacks, #mentalhealth, #workplacewellness, #socialpsychology, #techleadership, #careeradvice

Work-life tradeoffs are highlighted below for three use cases based on cognitive psychology limits of social group size. Use Case 1 shows an Engineer with a balance of work & life social connections (see Figure 1). Use Case 2 shows a Director of Product Management who is overwhelmed with direct reports and work stakeholders (see Figure 2). Use Case 3 shows a Designer with a priority of family life connections (see Figure 3).

These three use cases are based on typical “Inner Core” and “Inner Ring” limits to a person’s social network approximate limits of 5 and 10 people, respectively [3]. These 15 people typically represent two-thirds of a person’s social interaction time [3]. Remaining social interaction time is typically divided within social “Band Societies” of 25-50 people [2], and ultimately our maximum social network size of about 150 people [1]. From a tech leadership perspective, the social band limits of 25-50 people align with many government regulations associated with the 50-person Applicable Large Employer limit [4] as well as the rule-of-thumb that a tech startup CEO must accept full delegation of at least some staff after the startup reaches about 50 employees.

For Use Case 1, suppose an Engineer has their most in-depth social interactions with the five people listed in their Inner Core (see Figure 1). The balance might increase towards a life-dominant inner core if a parent becomes ill and needs extensive care or their volunteer work increases in significance. In such a case, the Mother or Volunteer 1 in their Inner Ring might displace the Boss of their “Inner Core”. Conversely, if work becomes more demanding, the three Co-workers in the Engineer’s Inner Ring might displace their Spouse, Child, and Best Friend.

Figure 1:  Use Case 1 - Engineer in a pair-programming environment with a balanced work-life social network

For Use Case 2, suppose a Director of a Product Management team has five direct-reports, a boss, and multiple stakeholders within a matrix-managed large organization (see Figure 2). The five direct-reports and boss interactions could completely consume the Director’s Inner Core as well as some of their Inner Ring social time. Their need for moderately deep social interactions with a few other directors and leaders as part of their “managing up” responsibilities could quickly consume most (or even all) of their Inner Ring. This Director may be at a high risk for burnout and/or broken relationships with their spouse and children.

Figure 2:  Use Case 2 - Director with direct reports and stakeholders with a work-dominated social network

For Use Case 3, suppose a Design consultant in a remote work situation has infrequent, highly structured social work interactions with their boss and a primary contact client co-worker at any given time (see Figure 3). This scenario leaves flexibility for the designer to have a life-dominant social Inner Core with their direct family members, as well as considerable family and friend social interactions with their Inner Ring connections. Increasing social interactions with work colleagues from an event, such as switching to an in-person work arrangement with longer working hours, could end up displacing one or more family members from their Inner Core.

Figure 3:  Use Case 3 - Designer in a remote work environment with a life-dominated social network

In summary, the above three use cases describe balanced, work-dominant, and life-dominant arrangements as thought exercises for framing one’s family and personal constraints with work commitments. Considering our realistic limits to deep social group sizes, we can make better decisions in response to major life events such as new, deepening friendships or work promotions with greater people-management responsibilities. 

[1] Dunbar, R. I. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of human evolution, 22(6), 469-493.

[2] Williams, B. J., & Wobst, H. M. (1974). A model of band society. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, (29), i-138.

[3] Dunbar, R. (2018). Why Drink Is the Secret to Humanity’s Success [27.7. 2022]. Financial Times, 10.

[4] Determining if an employer is an applicable large employer (accessed Nov 20, 2024) https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/determining-if-an-employer-is-an-applicable-large-employer