What’s the point of thousands of LinkedIn connections?

How many friends do you have? Coworkers? Acquaintances?

Those numbers are usually very different—and they depend entirely on how you define the word friend. Anthropologist Robin Dunbar famously explored this idea and found that humans can realistically maintain only about 150 meaningful relationships. After studying historical, anthropological, and psychological data on group sizes, Dunbar and his colleagues noticed a striking pattern: groups tend to function well up to around 150 people, after which they often fragment or lose cohesion.

This pattern shows up in modern settings, too, including workplaces. Once organizations grow beyond roughly 150 people, they often struggle with communication, trust, and effectiveness—an insight that should matter to employers managing large teams.

Within that larger number, our social worlds are layered. At the center are about five people—our closest loved ones. From there, the circles expand, often in multiples of five, with connections becoming progressively less intimate:

• 5: closest loved ones

• 15: good friends

• 50: friends

• 150: meaningful contacts

• 500: acquaintances

• 1,500: people you can recognize

People move in and out of these circles over time, but the total capacity stays relatively fixed. Making room for new relationships usually means others fade.

Social media hasn’t changed this structure as much as we might think. Even when people have hundreds or thousands of online connections, most of those relationships fall into the outer, weaker layers. Research suggests that these “weak ties”—neighbors, familiar faces at the coffee shop, or people you see regularly at the gym—still matter. They contribute to happiness and a sense of belonging, even if the connections are casual.

Which raises an interesting question: beyond visibility and self-promotion, what is the real value of having thousands of LinkedIn connections? Are those relationships meaningful—and if so, for whom?

This is where employers should be cautious. A large professional network may look impressive on paper, but size alone is a poor predictor of business impact. Many of these connections are shallow, one-directional, or purely transactional—built for visibility rather than mutual trust. A connection does not automatically translate into influence, advocacy, or results.

When hiring, it’s tempting to assume that a candidate’s expansive LinkedIn network will unlock partnerships, revenue, or rapid growth. In reality, most people can actively leverage only a small fraction of their connections. Meaningful business outcomes tend to come from deeper relationships—those rooted in credibility, shared history, and reciprocity—not from hundreds of low-stakes professional ties. Employers are better served by evaluating how candidates build, maintain, and activate relationships, rather than how many names appear in their network.