You do not compose a circle on instinct. Every criterion we use to match you rests on established work on how groups think, trust and influence one another. Here they are, and what we draw from them.
Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, using data from the Framingham Heart Study, showed that behaviours, habits and even mood spread through a social network up to three degrees: the friend of your friend's friend influences you, without you ever knowing them. What Jim Rohn said by intuition ("you are the average of your five"), research measures: your circle transforms you, in one direction or the other.
What we draw from it: extreme care over who sits at your table. It is the most underrated lever a leader has.
Amy Edmondson, a Harvard professor, demonstrated as early as 1999 that psychological safety, the ability to speak without fear of being judged, predicts a team's learning and performance. In 2012, Google analysed 180 of its teams (Project Aristotle) and reached the same conclusion: psychological safety is the single strongest factor in effectiveness, ahead of individual talent, collective IQ or experience.
What we draw from it: strict confidentiality, zero competitors, no crossed interests at the table. These are the conditions for speech to truly loosen.
Alison Reynolds and David Lewis, in Harvard Business Review (2017), studied 150 leadership teams facing a new problem. The fastest to solve it were not the most homogeneous nor the most experienced, but the most cognitively diverse: different ways of processing information and approaching a situation.
What we draw from it: a chosen diversity of seats and sectors around the table. The fresh perspective comes from there.
Diversity alone is not enough. The work of Miller McPherson and colleagues (Annual Review of Sociology, 2001) establishes the principle of homophily: "similarity breeds connection". Between people too far apart, trust settles poorly and ties come undone faster.
What we draw from it: comparable calibre. The right setting is: alike enough to understand each other, different enough to move each other.
Ronald Burt (American Journal of Sociology, 2004) asked leaders for their best ideas, then had them scored. The highest rated came systematically from those whose network bridged separate worlds, what he calls structural holes. Whoever connects two groups sees options the others cannot.
What we draw from it: peers taken from outside your direct ecosystem. Never a competitor, never your usual circle: that is what opens the field.
Research on decision groups converges on small numbers. The work of J. Richard Hackman and Neil Vidmar puts the optimum around five (precisely 4.6). Beyond that, the number of interactions to manage grows exponentially (n × (n − 1) / 2), and the decision dilutes.
What we draw from it: five peers, a circle of six. Enough for diversity, few enough that each one counts.
Sources. A. Reynolds & D. Lewis, "Teams Solve Problems Faster When They're More Cognitively Diverse", Harvard Business Review, 2017. · A. Edmondson, "Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams", Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999; Google, Project Aristotle (Harvard Business School). · N. Christakis & J. Fowler, "Social contagion theory", Statistics in Medicine, 2013; Connected, 2009. · M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, J. Cook, "Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks", Annual Review of Sociology, 2001. · R. Burt, "Structural Holes and Good Ideas", American Journal of Sociology, 2004. · J. R. Hackman & N. Vidmar, on optimal group size, 1970. Paraphrased by Five Peers, with no verbatim quotation.
Our criteria are not pulled from a hat. See how we compose your circle.
Request to join