Increasing team size is a common strategy used by corporations to combat inefficiencies and boost production. It makes sense to have more people around to help with duties and problem-solving. However, in my experience, this strategy frequently results in increasing overhead and inefficiencies.
I have often asked myself: How come smaller teams frequently perform better than larger ones? My take on this question is that coordination and communication problems are more common in large teams, which is one explanation. Getting a bigger group to to unite on a common goal, embrace an unusual theory or approach, or quickly adapt to a different path, can be difficult.
Smaller teams, however, may be more flexible and nimble. Decision-making can happen more quickly and communication can be more efficient when fewer people are engaged. This enables small teams to adjust swiftly to shifting conditions and make quick turns when necessary.
A mixed group of 40–60 persons cannot provide the same outcomes as a very productive team of 5–6 senior individuals. There are fewer parties involved, which makes communication easier; therefore, the explanation appears obvious. Because everyone is aware of what their coworkers are working on, coordination problems are less common. Another benefit of smaller groups is avoiding “shallow” employees. In a small team, you can’t be shallow. Maybe you can get away with it for a short time, but this will be brought to light sooner rather than later. Additionally, small teams appear to self-heal more effectively. We can readily upskill when necessary and simultaneously fan out coding standards, which enables us to be adaptable and distribute tasks among team members.
Since members of small groups are usually more acquainted with one another’s abilities, knowledge, and strengths, decision-making in these settings is usually more efficient. Because of their familiarity, the group can assign work according to individual competencies, resulting in contributions that are more specialized and informed. Making decisions with more accuracy and understanding is possible when everyone is aware of each other’s strengths in particular domains. Because small groups are close-knit and promote better communication and understanding, collaboration also becomes easier. Because people can rely on one another’s experience, coordination is easier and problem-solving is completed more quickly. Smaller teams typically have higher levels of trust and accountability, which facilitates candid discussion of ideas and effective dispute resolution. In the end, having a deep understanding of one another’s abilities enables the group to capitalize on individual talents, resulting in more cohesive and superior decision-making.
Previous posts on this topic
Leave a Reply