I saw this article in "The New Yorker" and it got me thinking about chapter size and how 'effective' the college fraternity experience is. The Dunbar number? Generally speaking it is the number of people you call "friends". The article goes into it with more nuance, but lets call it 150 for now.
For years I have maintained (based only on anecdotal observation) that the minimum size of a good chapter is 50 men. Fewer that that and the chapter struggles to fill the operational positions for exec and the support areas.There is also difficulty managing finances (with the inevitable slow- and non-payers). and even fielding competitive intramural teams.
In reading this article I am led to consider whether there is an upward limit as well. Can you really have a full-on 'brotherhood' experience with more than 150 fellow chapter members? Perhaps there s a risk that a 150+ sized chapter will effectively split into multiple "sub-chapters" - groups who stick together and have independent agendas, even to the detriment of stated overall chapter goals and strategic vision. I know there are some 200+ member chapters. How do you keep it real?
Take a look at the article and share your experience and thoughts about it. Did you belong to a large "Sigma Phi Everyone" chapter, or a large chapter of another fraternity? How well did the experience work out. Was your chapter a smaller (100 or less) size? How effectively did you get to know all your brothers and did you work well together?
I'm not purposely leaving out sororities either. However, I suspect that there will be differences based on the presence or absence of a "Y" chromosome. I'd like to hear about it if only to show the contrast. Too many degrees of freedom and the examination gets unwieldy for this non-social scientist.
Lets hear your viewpoint. Comment either on the blog, Google+, or Facebook. I am hoping for some interesting discussion.
Logging you in...
Tom Barton · 546 weeks ago
wordjunky01 18p · 546 weeks ago
Bill Patten · 546 weeks ago
Herb Philpott · 546 weeks ago
wordjunky01 18p · 546 weeks ago
Referring back to the article, I think it is probably unrealistic to expect a "full-on brotherhood experience" with more than about the 50 or so that would be considered "close friends". That does not mean, however, that the 150 number is meaningless. Rather, it is a realistic, and if the article is to be believed - hardwired, number of people we can relate to, and be relaxed and comfortable in their presence.
The inference I take from the article is that while 150 may not be the absolute maximum workable chapter size, you probably need to pay extra attention from the Exec and AVC levels to the risks of developing destructive factions and apathy in the membership when a chapter gets that large. And yes, factions and apathy can happen in any size chapter, but would seem to be more of a potential in a larger one.
Mike O'Dorney · 546 weeks ago
When you look at the Dunbar Number of 150, a 50 man chapter means each brother “uses” a third of his Dunbar Number for his chapter. We all keep friends from high school, have friendships with classmates, join extracurricular activities and have jobs, churches and organizations off campus. These are the rest of our Dunbar Number. As a house gets larger, more and more people get added to our Dunbar Number, and we find they have more in common with ourselves. When you make a positive effort to be a brother, that pays off differently, with different brothers, and usually pays off better with those more like yourself.
If you are familiar with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, here’s how it can work. There are sixteen types, and they tend to be distributed unevenly. A more common type - like an ESFJ - makes up 12 percent of the population. A “medium” type, like ENFP, is about 7%. Rare types, like ENTJ are around 2 percent. People like to form “critical mass” - about 5 or 6 like-minded people. Which means the ESFJ’s will form critical mass with 5 brothers in the house. The medium types like ENFP’s will need a 70 man house to form critical mass. If they are in a smaller house, sometimes they find other Greeks, and form critical mass, and sometimes they find critical mass in an extracurricular activity, or professional honorary. But the rare types seldom achieve critical mass, unless there is a concerted analytical, broad-based effort to make it happen.
As a chapter grows, more and more brothers achieve critical mass and the brotherhood gets stronger. One plus is that, once a brother achieves critical mass, it is easy for him to reach out to those from smaller types, especially those that differ by a letter or two. They become bridgers for the brothers who often feel like “odd men out”. Naturally, cohorts will form - brothers with the same majors, from similar geographies, those who like music or sports or sciences. If you can keep these cohorts from becoming cliques, and nip the drama in the bud, you can build brotherhood on a fabric of commonalities, without a lot of walls.
Critical mass tends to foster shared experiences. Ski trips, ball games, double dates all foster brotherhood, and naturally lead to spontaneous conversations about ways to improve brotherhood. Most of us don’t want to air “dirty linen”, but a couple of guys on a double date could ask the girls “How can we improve brotherhood between the second floor and the third floor”. Positive questions elicit positive answers.
And, lastly, think of ways to include the rare types. Make use of their skills in meetings and activities - Teacher, champion, Inventor, Corporate Planner … Seek out similar types in other chapters, either chapters of your fraternity on different campuses, or in fraternities (or sororities) on your campus. The easiest way to build brotherhood is to grow your chapter and live your ritual. But, up to a point (80 brothers, or so), it is easier to help the rare types find critical mass outside the chapter, than to grow and house an additional 50 brothers to create critical mass internally.