Togetherness: A Deliberate Practice

At the Inclusive Leadership Institute, we think a lot about "togetherness." This focus is connected to some of the most basic questions that underpin anthropological inquiry:

• What is togetherness, and how does it relate to human experience?
• How does togetherness work, in general, and within specific groups or communities?
• How is togetherness practiced, maintained, repaired, and/or restored - and what are the specific and general (perhaps universal) patterns?
• How can the answers to these questions help us individually and collectively navigate the challenges of the present?

The last question is particularly relevant to navigating our globally hyper-connected world, where many—paradoxically—feel profoundly alone and where fragmentation, divisiveness, and separation seem to gain momentum against the forces of togetherness. 

Let's explore this together …

Our Basic Building Block

Humans come in groups! This is a basic, obvious, and rather unremarkable anthropological fact. It is unremarkable, as it does not make us unique among the creatures that inhabit our planet. Birds move in flocks or swarms, as do fish, and many animals exist in herds. We also exist in groups.

In fact, we are not only together within human groups but together with other species as integral and dynamic parts of a much wider ecosystem. And these initial reflections may already hold important insights:

• Our basic unit is the group.
• Togetherness connects us within systems, ecosystems, and across differences.
• Togetherness is a connective tissue of interdependent actors that do not require consciousness of their interconnectedness.

Our Evolution Is Built On Togetherness

While togetherness may not be unique to humans, how we practice it is our superpower! How we manage, regulate, and flexibly construct togetherness distinguishes us from other species. This points back to the central role of culture and our ability to socially construct social systems, scale up how we organize ourselves, and expand circles of association, affinity, trust, and collaboration.

From early hunter-gatherer bands huddling around fires to modern teams collaborating across continents, from small settlements to towns, cities, states, nations, and empires, from governments and administrations to regional confederations and international organizations, we have been able to organize ourselves in increasingly complex ways dynamically. Anthropology has elaborated on the basic toolbox of social construction that has enabled this development. Chief among them:

• Kinship and Cooperation: Anthropologists observe that for most of human history, survival hinged on small, interdependent groups. Shared rituals, mutual caregiving, and collective decision-making reinforced social bonds. This makes kinship a foundational concept and the foundation of cooperation.
• Empathy and Compassion: Social anthropologists remind us that empathy and compassion were practiced as an early foundation for culture and enacted through customs, traditions (holidays, celebrations, remembrances), and stories passed down for generations.
• Rituals and Symbols: Ceremonies, communal meals, and initiation rites, as well as any objects and symbolic representations that were used within them, created shared meaning, cementing trust, social identification, and belonging. They also regulate fissures and fracturing of togetherness, conflict handling, and social healing. When disputes arise—over resources, status, or beliefs—early groups relied on mediation rituals: apologies, symbolic exchanges, or third-party arbitration. Over centuries, these practices evolved into institutions (courts, councils, parliaments) and written treaties that formalize how we restore harmony.
• Governance Norms, Practices, and Rules: Even the smallest bands develop conventions—who hunts, how spoils are shared, what’s taboo—to maintain fairness. As societies grow, these informal norms give way to explicit rules and sanctions, from elders’ councils to codified law. From consensus-based councils in foraging bands to stratified chiefdoms and complex state bureaucracies, governance systems have always shaped how power, resources, and responsibilities are allocated. Effective governance—be it through elders’ assemblies, elected leaders, or hybrid models—provides the scaffolding for collective action and accountability.
• Spiritual (religious) Leadership: Across cultures, shamans, priests, and spiritual guides have woven togetherness through shared cosmologies and sacred rituals. These figures mediate between the seen and unseen, offering communal rites—like healing ceremonies or collective prayers—that reaffirm group identity and provide frameworks for both the natural, social, and moral order.

Importantly, the above are fundamental building blocks of the phenomenon of culture and are foundational to any ethnographic description. But not only does our biology precondition us for the reliance on culture to construct various forms of togetherness. The form of togetherness we can create is also constrained by our biology.

In this context, the work of British anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar is significant. He is best known for formulating the Social Brain Hypothesis, which links primate neocortex size to the number of stable relationships a species can maintain.

Dunbar observed a strong correlation between primate neocortex volume and average social‐group size. Extrapolating to humans, he proposed a cognitive limit of roughly 150 stable relationships—now famously known as “Dunbar's Number."

Beyond the outer 150, he theorizes that our social world is organized into concentric layers of intimacy—typically five close confidants, 15 good friends, 50 friends, then the 150 meaningful contacts, with broader acquaintances numbering in the low thousands.

Maintaining emotional bonds requires mental “bandwidth” (empathy and memory) and investing time and energy in social bonding rituals to sustain and nurture group cohesion (analogous to grooming rituals in Primates). According to Dunbar, these constraints naturally cap how many relationships we can sustain at each layer.

In that sense, Dunbar's work reminds us that togetherness is bounded not by a lack of goodwill but by cognitive and temporal realities. His insights are essential guideposts for deliberate efforts to create sustainable social cohesion by structuring interactions with these human-scale limits and enriching fewer relationships rather than overextending many.

Applying Dunbar's insights, we can craft communities, organizations, and personal networks that feel truly connected. For example:

1. Design for Optimal Group Size: Neighborhood initiatives and local associations often function best when they cap membership near 150. Beyond that, members struggle to know one another, weakening social cohesion. In organizations and teams, agile units or "pods" of 10–50 people mesh well with our layered social architecture—small enough for strong bonds yet large enough for diversity of skills.
2. Leverage Ritual as Bonding Fuel: Dunbar emphasizes that grooming rituals (in primates) were supplanted by shared rituals in humans— storytelling, communal meals, celebrations—to maintain group cohesion at scale. We see the same need today: storytelling and sharing, well-designed onboarding ceremonies, team traditions, and corporate retreats serve as "social glue."
3. Mitigate Fragmentation: In overly large or diffuse networks (e.g., massive online groups), Dunbar's layers get stretched, leading to shallow ties and the loneliness and “othering” many suffer from and seek to overcome. Intentional sub-groupings—interest‐based cohorts, mentorship circles, or peer-learning clusters—help recreate the manageable circles Dunbar describes.

Individually, all of us can apply Dunbar's insight by recognizing our relational layers and examining where to invest our "social budget." Rather than scattering effort across hundreds of weak ties, we might choose to deepen connections within our inner circle or cultivate a new circle of 15–50 around a shared purpose. These are just a few examples of how we can apply the science of togetherness in practical ways to address the challenges of today.

Togetherness in a Fragmenting World

Crowded cities, despite their density and diversity, can paradoxically erode neighborly ties. Marc J. Dunkelman’s concept of the “crisis of urban anonymity” captures how modern metropolitan life often disrupts the dense, overlapping networks that once formed the bedrock of community life. People may live physically close but remain socially distant, retreating into private lives or homogeneous micro-communities. Without intentional structures that foster connection across daily routines and social roles, urban environments can become isolating, and fuel loneliness, mistrust, and disconnection in the very spaces where collaboration and mutual care are most needed.

Rising inequality adds another layer of strain. Research by Wilkinson and Pickett demonstrates that higher levels of inequality are associated with lower levels of trust, greater anxiety, and weaker civic engagement. When people perceive that society is rigged or unfair, they are less likely to invest in shared institutions or believe in collective solutions. This erosion of shared purpose affects not only those at the margins—it destabilizes the social fabric as a whole. Inequality doesn't just divide rich and poor; it fractures the common ground upon which democratic norms and inclusive institutions depend.

Digital technologies, especially social media platforms powered by algorithmic curation, further deepen these divides. By feeding users content that aligns with existing beliefs and preferences, algorithms tend to reinforce ideological silos and fuel “othering.” Over time, this personalization undermines shared narratives and public discourse, making it harder for societies to agree on facts, values, or even the nature of the problems they face. Instead of fostering pluralism, the digital commons often become a battleground of parallel realities, where togetherness is not just absent but actively eroded.

In increasingly diverse and interconnected societies, the most vital form of togetherness is not within groups but between them. True social cohesion demands the creation of spaces, narratives, and norms that bridge differences— whether cultural, economic, generational, or ideological. This kind of cross-group togetherness doesn’t happen spontaneously; it must be designed for and co-created. Public institutions, urban planners, organizational leaders, and community builders all have a role to play in cultivating inclusive practices and architectures of belonging. From equitable education systems and open civic forums to intercultural dialogue and participatory governance, togetherness must become a shared civic project. When this happens, societies not only function better— they become more resilient, just, and humane.

Togetherness In Organizations

Separate and siloed departments can breed distrust and duplication, top-down communication can stifle innovation and belonging, and a lack of shared purpose leads to disengagement. In contrast, a strong sense of togetherness helps organizations unlock the full potential of diverse teams. Employees who experience mutual trust, shared goals, and psychological safety are more likely to take initiative, collaborate across boundaries, and contribute to meaningful innovation. Togetherness isn't merely about camaraderie—it is about the intentional cultivation of relational and strategic alignment that enables people to move in sync, especially in times of change or ambiguity.

In global organizations, in particular, fostering togetherness is essential and complex. Cultural differences, time zones, and varied work norms can make it harder to build cohesion. What feels inclusive and empowering in one context might feel intrusive or confusing in another. When leaders assume uniformity in how people connect, contribute, or belong, they risk eroding the very togetherness they seek to promote. Therefore, global togetherness requires a culturally intelligent approach—one that adapts to differences while anchoring people in a shared narrative of purpose and values.

Yet, togetherness also carries risks when it becomes exclusionary or rigid. Tight-knit teams can unintentionally form in-groups, leaving others marginalized or tokenized. Overemphasis on harmony may suppress dissenting voices or discourage experimentation, leading to groupthink or stagnation. In global contexts, there is an added danger of enforcing a dominant cultural mode of “togetherness” that overrides local wisdom or alternative ways of relating. Real unity requires more than alignment; it requires humility, adaptability, and continual reflexivity.

To create and sustain healthy togetherness in organizations, Inclusive Leadership is key. Leaders must move beyond slogans and invest in inclusive practices that span cultures and hierarchies. This means creating structures for shared meaning-making, facilitating cross-boundary collaboration, and encouraging honest dialogue about power, identity, and belonging. When togetherness is designed as a dynamic process—rather than a static ideal—it becomes a powerful foundation for resilience, innovation, and global effectiveness. This is the essence of Inclusive Leadership.

The Individual’s Role: Cultivating Connection

While systems and structures matter, building togetherness ultimately begins with individuals. Each person can influence the tone, texture, and trust within a group—whether it’s a team at work, a neighborhood, or a broader civic community. Anthropology reminds us that while we inherit cultural norms and relational patterns, we also have the agency to reshape them. Becoming aware of your own “belonging budget”—how you allocate time, attention, and emotional investment—can reveal opportunities to shift from passive routines to intentional acts of connection.

Modern societies are grappling with what some have called a “crisis of loneliness,” exacerbated by individualism, technology, and fragmented communities. But healing this disconnection doesn’t always require grand gestures. Small, consistent acts—like sending a check-in message, offering help, or expressing gratitude—can activate neural pathways of trust and empathy. These acts don't just uplift others; they also renew the giver's sense of purpose and relational grounding. In organizations, acknowledging a colleague's effort or inviting someone into a conversation can begin to reshape group norms toward inclusion.

Cultivating togetherness is a matter of practice. Micro-rituals such as a shared morning coffee, a walking meeting, or ending a team check-in with a reflective question can nurture warmth and predictability in social interactions. Scheduling regular “digital sabbaths”—periods of intentional disconnection from screens—can create space for more meaningful, face-to-face encounters. Community contribution, too, is a powerful lever: volunteering, joining a local board, or participating in a shared civic initiative rekindles the feeling of being part of something larger than oneself.

Ultimately, fostering togetherness is not just an interpersonal or moral act— it is a form of leadership. Individuals who model openness, listen across difference, and make space for others signal that belonging is everyone’s responsibility. In diverse workplaces and pluralistic societies alike, it is often these micro-moves—quiet but deliberate—that set the conditions for broader cultural change. Each of us, through the choices we make daily, becomes either a bridge or a barrier to the communities we inhabit.

A Unified Framework: Inclusiveness, Belonging & Togetherness

Togetherness is an essential addition to the ideas of inclusiveness and belonging. Together, they form a dynamic system underpinning healthy communities, organizations, and teams.

Inclusiveness - Opening the Door: Inclusiveness is not about representation or visibility; it is a systemic practice of recognizing and dismantling the barriers—often invisible—that exclude people from full participation. These barriers may be embedded in organizational structures (e.g., rigid promotion pathways that favor dominant cultural norms), cultural practices (e.g., communication styles that privilege assertiveness over reflection), or psychological climates (e.g., environments where certain employees consistently self-censor). For example, a multinational company that offers flexible religious holiday scheduling and creates multilingual onboarding materials is not just being polite—it is intentionally redesigning access points so that more people can step through the door and be heard on their own terms. Inclusiveness is the precondition for diverse voices to enter and contribute meaningfully.

Togetherness - Building Shared Space(s): Where inclusiveness opens the door, togetherness invites people to stay, engage, and shape the space with others. It is enacted through the rituals and rhythms of collective life that foster mutual recognition and alignment—things like regular retrospectives in agile teams, mentorship pairings across functions, or shared service initiatives that unite employees around a common goal. Togetherness is not accidental; it must be curated through intentional design of how people meet, interact, and build culture together. For instance, a hospital that hosts monthly interdisciplinary forums where nurses, physicians, and administrative staff co-develop patient-care improvements isn’t just managing logistics—it is generating a sense of common cause that bridges professional and hierarchical boundaries.

(Sense of) Belonging - Cultivating the Inner Experience: Belonging is the quiet, internal affirmation that “I matter here.” It emerges when individuals feel psychologically safe to bring their full selves into a space and are met with respect, affirmation, and reciprocity. Importantly, belonging cannot be mandated—it is felt. It arises when inclusive practices (who gets in) and togetherness rituals (how we live and work together) align authentically. For example, a Black engineer in a tech firm may feel included through recruitment and connected through project teams, but it is the moment her lived experiences are acknowledged in a team discussion or her ideas are implemented without being second-guessed that belonging becomes real. Organizations that measure diversity without attending to this inner experience often overlook the emotional glue that keeps people engaged and committed.

Dynamic Interdependence in Practice

These three dimensions are not sequential steps but co-creative forces in a dynamic system of interdependence. Without inclusiveness, togetherness risks becoming exclusionary or performative. Without togetherness, inclusiveness remains a hollow gesture. Without belonging, both can feel transactional rather than transformational. A university, for instance, may adopt inclusive admissions policies and offer diverse student clubs (togetherness), but if racialized students feel alienated in classroom discussions or unsupported by faculty, the sense of belonging will falter—and so will retention.

Healthy teams and communities continually recalibrate this triad, tuning structures, practices, and emotional climates to meet evolving needs. This unified framework becomes a living model, adaptable across cultures, industries, and levels of scale.

How are you cultivating togetherness?

What do you agree or disagree with in the above? What is missing from your perspective? What are you curious about?