Lessons From Tug of War
In 1913, a French agricultural engineer named Max Ringelmann conducted a study on a highly important topic: rope pulling. Along the way, he noticed something strange. As he added more people to help pull, the total force generated by the group rose — but the average force exerted by each member of the group declined.
This phenomenon, known as the Ringelmann Effect, has been replicated in various studies over the years. The TLDR is that when the number of team members increases, each person tends to feel that their own effort is less critical.
In that vein, research has shown that when it comes to problem-solving and creativity, smaller and more empowered teams are often the most effective. A study conducted by Staats, Milkman, and Fox found that a team of two completed a Lego structure 36% faster than a team of four. Entertainingly, the latter was twice as optimistic about outperforming the former.
Other experiments have also shown the limitations of larger groups. The “bystander effect” reveals how the presence of others can inhibit people from intervening in emergency situations. And when it comes to tackling complex tasks, such as solving a difficult letters-to-numbers problem, the ideal team size appears to be around three people, according to the late Patrick Laughlin's laboratory experiment with over 750 students at the University of Illinois.
Of course, the right team size depends on the problem you're trying to solve. Sometimes, bigger teams are necessary to get the job done faster. Wharton Professor Jennifer S. Mueller uses the example of cleaning up a stadium: 30 people will always do it faster than 5. Likewise, if you are doing a round of arcane trivia, a larger group is more likely to have somebody who knows the answer.
But as companies get bigger, there can be a tendency to form large committees with little sense of personal ownership over the problem. In these cases, it can be more effective to have a smaller group of people who are the most committed to solving the problem.
Ultimately, what matters is finding the right balance between team size, individual skills, and group dynamics. Perhaps the answer is found in one of those quotes that the internet attributes to dozens of people: “More is not always better. Only better is better.”