the tipping point

by malcolm gladwell. "how little things can make a big difference" is the subtitle. this is a bestseller and i was interested to see his take on phenomena and epidemics. having recently read so many critical accounts of society, agriculture, and economics i was excited to see how things might change for the better via epidemics. recycling was one epidemic i had great experience with growing up. i remember the day that san jose instituted its rather expansive recycling program. one day we were throwing everything into one bin, and the next we had bins for every type of waste; aluminum, glass, newspaper, food waste, motor oil, metals, and yard waste were all separated and laid out on the curb in a precarious rainbow stack. san jose went from not recycling at all, to being the number one city in the world (probably for about a week). i always wondered how this happened.

gladwell breaks epidemics down into classes of people that fuel the epidemic. basically, his hypothesis is that these few people (connectors, mavens, and salesmen) spread the word about an idea or product. once this idea (and the idea has to be a "sticky" idea) reaches a certain critical mass (of typically 150 people) the product tips or explodes into the mainstream. he looks at the stickiness factor of sesame street and blues clues, the massive fall of new york city crime by tweaking very small cues in the environment, the allure of suicide and smoking, and the spread of fashion from a few to the world.

in regards to the new york city crime drop:

the criminal - far from being someone who acts for fundamental intrinsic reasons and who lives in his own world - is actually someone acutely sensitive to his environment, who is alert to all kinds of cues, and who is prompted to commit crimes based on his perception of the world around him ... behavior is a function of social context. [Crime] has everything to do with the message sent by the graffiti on the walls and the disorder at the turnstiles [of the NYC subway].

quoting the evolutionary biologist S.L. Washburn in an attempt to pinpoint the magic number of 150, the "social channel capacity" (note the interesting parallel with Manning's Against The Grain):

Most of human evolution took place before the advent of agriculture when men lived in small groups, on a face-to-face basis. As a result human biology has evolved as an adaptive mechanism to conditions that have largely ceased to exist. Man evolved to feel strongly about few people, short distances, and relatively brief intervals of time; and these are still the dimensions of life that are important to him.

Thus, the figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of people we can "know;" those who we have a genuinely social relationship with. Or, "those people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in the bar."

Gladwell references Gore Associates (makers of Gore-Tex fabric) that take this number of 150 seriously:

At Gore there are no title. If you ask people who work there for their card, it will just say their name and underneath it the word "Associate," regardless of how much money they make or how much responsibility they have or how long they have been at the company. People don't have bosses, they have sponsors - mentors - who watch out for their interests. There are no organization charts, no budgets, no elaborate strategic plans. Salaries are determined collectively.

The short of the long of it is, Gore Associates is one of the most desirable companies to work for: they have a turnover rate that is 33% the industry average, they've been profitable for 35 consecutive years, and they are innovative and they are constantly growing new product lines. Whenever they grow to over 150 people, they divide the company into autonomous divisions. This way, you can work with people you feel a connection to. You know and understand everyone's job and their function. You build a relationship because you depend on them and what they do and they, likewise, rely on you.