The Blue Man Group consists in several musical theatre troupes, acting all around the world, that follow the same conventions: three characters designed to be identical (the same size, the same body shape, the same blue latex bald caps and black clothes, and no voices), acting as outsiders to our modern world.
This is a short video of an interview with founders Matt Goldman, Phil Stanton and Chris Wink:
My favorite quote here is from Matt Goldman:
The group of three is the smallest contingent where you can have an outsider.
Find two other people and start discussing something. Could be a topic in the news, what you ate for lunch, a project you’re working, or a new start-up.
Sometimes, one will be talking and the others will listen. He is the outsider.
Sometimes, two will be discussing the topic while the third listens. He is the outsider.
Sometimes, two will agree and the third will disagree. He is the outsider.
Sometimes, one will have the solution when the other two are lost. He is the outsider.
We find the 2vs1 situation inherently remarkable, fun or interesting, because it makes it easier to see what is the norm and who is anormal. The outsider introduces creativity and disruption into the mix, where the two others provide stability and prevent the entire thing from going astray too much. As long as you switch roles often enough, there’s enough energy in a group of three to keep a discussion going forward for a while.
Three people is an entirely different group dynamic from only two people (and of course, the group dynamics of being only one person are different as well).
- One person is excellent for eliminating communication costs (maximum efficiency when you know what has to be done). If you can do it alone properly, then do it.
- Two people are good for high-bandwidth information transfer, because there’s no interruption.
- Three people are good for thinking outside the box, for creative meetings where one acts as the disruption and the other two are stabilizers. Less than two stabilizers leads to a situation that is too unstable. More than two stabilizers prevents things from going forward.
What are you trying to achieve? How many people do you really need in that meeting?
Hi. I'm Victor Nicollet,
Interesting psychology analysis. From my own experience, I already noticed that the ideal number of people to travel with is 2. So it makes a party of 3! Easier to take decision and introduce new ideas in the group.
I didn’t realize that this “principle” could be extrapolated that way to each and every group of sorts.
So thanks, i’ve learned something tonight. (Australian time… i’m going to bed).
cheers