I discover more and more that in any group of people, there's a tendency for it to fragment. Tiny differences can turn into huge obstacles. I've long been aware of this in terms of Christian denominations: one difference in the reading and interpretation of a single verse can (and has) led to a split, the formation of two denominations from one. In almost every respect, the two new groups agree with each other. But on this one point they disagree, and they separate.
It seems to happen with any group, from 2 members up to millions. In couples, small differences can lead to huge problems. Among vegetarians and vegans, some do not go far enough to satisfy others. Among atheists, there is agreement that there is no god -- but we still form into various factions that are in conflict.
There's no revelation here, I know. I'm sure it's long been known. I'm not a social scientist. I'm just seeing it everywhere now. Is something changing, or has it always been this... severe? Politically, people in congress used to be able to dislike each others' positions and yet work together to get things done for the common good. Not now...
I remember when Burger King came up with "have it your way". I once went to a Taco Bell and they didn't know how to charge for a burrito without meat, so they wouldn't sell it to me. Now, it's the norm for everything to be customized, from burritos to cars to educational programs. There's a lot to be said for it and I'm not complaining. But does this degree of individualism have a negative impact on cohesion as a group? I don't know; I merely ask.
There seems to be a finite amount of individuals in a given group before fragmentation occurs.
The number seems to be a couple of dozen before a disagreement occurs and a new leader emerges.
Football teams, military groups, religious groups and tribes.
Very much like Wolves, if the pack senses weakness, a new leader will fragment the pack or a take over will occur.