From an organizational perspective, choosing the right group size for a team project can be a very important decision. How many group members should a team ideally have? The answer depends on the specific situation of course, but in general there is agreement in the psychological community that smaller groups provide several advantages as compared to larger groups (PSU W.C. L.9). Organizational strategists and team builders should take the following information into consideration when designing a team to maximize its effectiveness and group member satisfaction levels.
Smaller groups are beneficial to team leadership for a few reasons. The obvious reason is that the leader has more time to spend with each group member. More time with each group member facilitates effective communication and ensures that all group members’ goals are in alignment. Also, in smaller groups it is easier for the leadership role to be shared among members. In our lesson this week on team leadership, we learned from Pearce and Sims (2000) that shared leadership contributed to team effectiveness beyond traditional leadership (PSU W.C. L.9). That means that when multiple members of a team share the leadership role, it benefits the entire group. Members of larger groups are more likely to form cliques, or subgroups, and this can influence the behaviors of the group in a way similar to peer pressure. Different cliques can develop their own conflicting interests and goals that can steer the group off of their original path. A final benefit of smaller groups is that there is less social loafing because each member feels a greater sense of shared responsibility and accountability.
Last semester in one of my business classes, I experienced a “good” example of social loafing. The students in my class were put into groups of 7 and given weekly assignments as well as long term final projects and presentations due at the end of the semester. I initially thought that 7 members in a group seemed a little much, and it turned out that I was right. Most of my group members got by doing the bare minimum, there was a lack of effective communication, and the leadership role was taken by only one member– me unfortunately. In the comment section of the course evaluation, I recommend reducing the size of the groups to around 4 members. With 4 members the group tasks and roles would have been more easily defined, responsibility more evenly distributed among members, communication easier, and it would be more likely for members to engage in shared team leadership.
According to the work of Margolis (2011), the optimal group size for decision-making as measured by satisfaction level is 4.6 members. My personal experiences are reflective of these findings as well. I tend to be the most productive in smaller groups of around 4-5 members. Increased productivity leads to increased group effectiveness and success, which in turn raises my personal level of satisfaction.
(Margolis, 2011)
References:
Margolis, S. (2011, January 24). What is the optimal group size for decision-making? Organizational Culture, Change Management, Employee Engagement. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.sheilamargolis.com/2011/01/24/what-is-the-optimal-group-size-for-decision-making/
Penn State World Campus (2013). PSYCH 485 Lesson 9: Team Leadership. Retrieved on March 17, 2013, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/psych485/003/content/09_lesson/10_page.html
Social loafing is a very important topic that was investigated in both I/O psychology area and social psychology area. People study it for ways to maximizing group efficiency. It is very true that social loafing is largely related to the size of the group, whereas fewer members in the team could alleviate this phenomenon. You’ve also briefly mention the theory of shared leadership, which introduce the situation when members of the group share the leadership behaviors that could contribute to the team effectiveness (Pearce & Sims, 2000). Despite of both of their effect on the team effectiveness, research has been shown that they may exert influence on each other as well. According to Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone (2007), social loafing may have detrimental effect on group’s shared leadership when beyond a certain team size (Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone, 2007).
In addition, while group size being a key determinant to social loafing, it is shown that individual evaluation could also affect social loafing in that successful individual evaluation mechanism could largely eliminate the social loafing exists in a group (Harkins and Jackson, 1985). This has given us a solution for solving the social loafing when large group is needed. A leader should be prepared to not only identify each individual’s work but also give evaluation for each, and as a result, social loafing within a group may be successfully reduced.
Reference:
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2000). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the longitudinal effectiveness of change. Unpublished manuscript.
Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (1985). The Role of Evaluation in Eliminating Social Loafing. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 11(457), 457-465.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., and Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared Leadership in Teams: An Investigation of Antecedent Conditions and Performance. Academy of Management, 50(5), 1217-1234.