Key Success Factor 10: Team Size *

There have been many studies on team performance as a function of team size. The general conclusion is that the optimum team size is roughly between seven and eleven people. This is a balance between a team with too few people to provide diversity and expertise and too many people to get full participation and open communication.

As teams become too large, they find it very difficult to reach a common understanding of a problem or situation. Large meetings usually end up as briefings rather than team collaboration. Many people feel ill at ease in actively participating in large groups, and discussions are usually dominated by a small number of participants.

Open disagreement is rare in a large group, except when it becomes a showcase for individuals to sound off. In either situation, true collaboration is rare because participants do not have the opportunity to interact in a collaborative environment. Large teams make it difficult for team members to get to know and trust each other. In addition, team members do not understand and appreciate other participant's roles, responsibilities, and contribution to team success.

On the other hand, larger size teams provide the opportunity for more innovative ideas if they are properly facilitated. Organizational buy-in on key decisions may prove difficult unless off-line conversations occur. Even when a team starts out small, as they become successful people may want to be on the team, eventually reaching a size where team effectiveness is hampered.

From an efficiency of information transfer perspective, large teams sound good. From a problem solving, decision making, and alignment perspective, large teams can have great difficulty. The curve below is a nominal representation of team performance versus team size.

Performance is very sensitive to individual relationships among team members. For teams to reach a high level of collaboration, their members need to know each other, know how to work together, and have developed a feeling of mutual accountability and responsibility for each other, as well as for program results. As Katzenbach and Smith (1993) noted in Wisdom of Teams, high performance teams are made up of team members who have a strong personal concern for each other as well as professional respect and collaboration. Large teams, because of sheer numbers of people, are unable to meet this criterion.

Although team size can vary as people depart or join the team, these changes have a dual impact on team performance. New members take time to become part of a team and to contribute their share of the intellectual resources. A high performance team is made up of individuals who know each other well, learn to work together, and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their fellow team members. They also take on specific roles within the team, dependent on its current objectives. Thus team members cannot be replaced ad hoc and maintain team effectiveness. While it will always be necessary to change team members, the potential impact on performance must be recognized and dealt with effectively. Further information is available on performance degradation.

There are advantages to bringing new members into the team to replace others. New team members bring fresh ideas and experiences to the team and can serve to keep the other team members open and flexible. New people can keep the knowledge base of the team capable of meeting the demands placed on the team as the phase of the program changes. Although the team always needs a full spectrum of disciplines, some program phases may place more emphasis on one discipline than others.

Finally, teams can become so cohesive and internally focused that they lose the ability to remain flexible and open to other views. When this occurs it is essential that new blood be inserted into the team. The team leader must make sure that peer pressure on the new member doesn't prevent the full and open discussion of different ways of doing things.