Working in teams has its pros and cons. In an earlier article, we offered criteria to decide whether to assign a task to a team or an individual. This article covers the next step: Once the decision to go with a team has been made, determining its size is crucial for efficiency and overall performance. Research by Maximilian Ringelmann, Cyril Northcote Parkinson, and studies on high-performance teams and social loafing provide valuable insights into why smaller teams can be more efficient. These studies offer specific recommendations for optimizing team size.
Research Insights
The Ringelmann Effect: Diminishing Returns with Larger Teams
Maximilian Ringelmann, a French agricultural engineer, conducted pioneering research in the early 20th century that revealed a phenomenon now known as the Ringelmann Effect. His experiments demonstrated that as the size of a team increases, the individual effort of each member tends to decrease. For instance, in a rope-pulling experiment, Ringelmann found that while individual effort was high when participants worked alone, it significantly dropped when they worked in groups. This reduction in effort is attributed to a diffusion of responsibility, where individuals feel less accountable for the outcome as the group size grows.
Social Loafing: The Hidden Threat in Large Teams
Social loafing, a concept closely related to the Ringelmann Effect, refers to the tendency of individuals to exert less effort when working in a group compared to when working alone. This phenomenon is more pronounced in larger teams, where individual contributions become less visible, leading to reduced accountability and motivation. Research shows that social loafing can negatively impact team performance, making it essential to address this issue when considering team size.
Parkinson’s Law: Bureaucratic Inefficiency
Cyril Northcote Parkinson, a British naval historian, introduced Parkinson’s Law in 1955, which states that “work expands to fill the time available for its completion”. Parkinson observed that as organizations grow, they tend to become more bureaucratic, leading to inefficiencies. This law highlights that larger teams or organizations often create unnecessary work and complexity, which can hinder productivity. Parkinson’s insights suggest that beyond a certain point, adding more team members can lead to diminishing returns due to increased coordination and communication overhead.
High-Performance Teams: Optimal Size
Research on high-performance teams emphasizes the importance of maintaining an optimal team size to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. High-performing teams are characterized by clear roles, strong communication, and a shared sense of purpose3. Studies indicate that smaller teams, typically ranging from 5 to 9 members, are more effective because they can maintain better communication, foster stronger relationships, and ensure that each member’s contributions are recognized and valued
Specific Recommendations for Optimal Team Size
Aim for teams with no more than 5 to 9 members. It helps cover the following critical project success factors:
- Defining Clear Roles: Clearly defined roles and responsibilities enhance individual accountability and reduce social loafing.
- Promoting a Shared Purpose: Ensures that all team members understand and are committed to the team’s goals and objectives.
- Fostering Strong Communication: open and frequent communication ensure all team members are aligned and engaged.
- Monitoring Team Dynamics: Regularly assessing team dynamics allows for early identification and resolution of issues related to social loafing or coordination challenges.
Approaches if more people are needed
There are situations in which more people are needed to accomplish a task. In this case the risk inherent in big teams needs to be mitigated. Below are some possible approaches:
- Sub-teams and Modularization: Break the larger team into smaller, more manageable sub-teams, each focused on specific aspects of the project. This approach maintains the benefits of a larger team’s diverse skill set while ensuring that each sub-team remains within the optimal size range for efficiency.
- Big Picture Understanding: Ensure that the team’s vision and goals are clearly communicated, understood and remembered by all members, that they are the north star of all subteam’s work.
- Effective Communication Channels: Establish robust communication channels to facilitate information flow between sub-teams. Regular check-ins and updates can help maintain cohesion and ensure that all team members are aligned with the project’s goals.
- Leveraging Technology: Utilize collaboration tools to streamline workflows and keep everyone on the same page. These tools help teams being efficient and provide transparency across sub-teams..
Conclusion
The size of a team significantly impacts its efficiency and overall performance. Research shows that as team size increases, individual effort diminishes, and more time is required for coordination and communication, leading to increased bureaucracy.
To optimize team performance, it is recommended to aim for teams with 5 to 9 members. This can enhance accountability, streamline decision-making, and maintain high levels of productivity, in short increase the chance of a team reaching goals without spending more time than needed. In situations where more people are needed, consider working in sub-teams, ensuring everyone understands and pursues a common goal while communicating effectively using collaboration technology.
Call to Action
Evaluate your current team sizes and consider adjustments to align with the recommended range of 5 to 9 members either in a main team or in sub-teams.
Reflect on each project’s purpose and how it aligns with the broader company goals. Ensure that both levels of purpose are understood by everyone involved. Verify that roles are clearly defined and known, and that team members use the provided technology to communicate adequately—neither too much nor too little.
References
Ringelmann effect, example Open Source Development
Parkinson’s law