At the outset, it’s always comforting to know you’ve built a big team of professionals to help drive your business aspirations. However, does a bigger number of employees affect the synergy in which an organisation functions? Let’s find out.
Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, suggests a fun way to determine whether your team is too big is to share a slice of pie (literally). According to him, if you can’t feed your team with just two pizzas, the team is probably bigger than it needs to be.
Of course, you can argue by stating facts that highlight strength in numbers and other valid points, however, there are some things that smaller teams seem to possess at a stronger degree than an organisation with an ocean of people.
- Ownership The smaller your team, the more important each member’s role becomes. Thus, the sense of ownership is cultivated organically here. What’s more? In a smaller team, each member typically knows what the other is doing even if it doesn’t have to do with their job role. This is seldom seem in huge MNCs where the norm is to do your job well and go back home.
- Significance If you want to understand how bigger numbers increase the odds of people slacking off, just find out how many people in the country don’t vote. When the scale is huge, they feel it’ll make little difference if they act upon this task or not. This is sort of what happens at a micro scale at big organisations. The less involved one feels with the core team, the more they feel insignificant. On the other hand, small teams, especially in young startups exude a strong bond with its founders and tend to feel more connected with their business, and are thus able to sync their individual goals with organisational ones.
- Cost-Efficient Ever walked into a gym and noticed a buff guy lifting and pumping his muscles? It’s no surprise that they’re strong. However, most buff bodybuilders lack flexibility. In comparison, look at someone who is more athletic and slim than buffed up. Their build is way more flexible and efficient. Similarly, a strong team doesn’t necessarily need to be big. Leaders must make smart choices by weighing flexibility and cost efficiency over numbers.
Do note that, by putting these points across, we’re not taking away from the fact that big organisations have managed to reach new levels of output and have been able to take their business to new heights. From an external perspective, it’s all good. However, internally, within teams, when you take a microscope and examine the ‘umbilical’ cord between the company and its employees, the relationship is more 9-5 than aspirational, which creates all possibility for output to be more task-driven than thought-driven – that’s where the difference lies.
