There have been several experiments and studies that have compared the performance of large teams vs. small teams. Here are a few examples:
- A study published in the Harvard Business Review found that smaller teams tend to be more effective and productive than larger teams. The study analyzed data from over 2,000 teams across a range of industries and found that as team size increased, productivity per worker decreased.
- Another study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that smaller teams tend to have better communication and are more effective at problem-solving. The study looked at data from 68 software development teams and found that smaller teams were better able to coordinate their work and resolve issues quickly.
- A study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior found that larger teams tend to have more social loafing (i.e., individuals contributing less effort when working in a group) than smaller teams. The study examined data from over 300 individuals working in teams and found that social loafing tended to increase as team size increased.
- An experiment conducted by Jeff Sutherland, one of the co-founders of Scrum, found that smaller teams tend to be more effective at delivering work than larger teams. In the experiment, Sutherland compared the performance of two teams working on the same project – one with 17 people and the other with 7 people. The team with 7 people was able to deliver the work faster and with fewer defects than the team with 17 people.
Overall, these studies suggest that smaller teams tend to be more effective and efficient than larger teams. However, it’s important to note that team size is just one of many factors that can impact team performance, and the optimal team size may vary depending on the specific context and project requirements.