An article in The New York Times highlighted a recent study around how team size impacts innovation. The research report from Nature titled, “Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology,” exposed how small teams can produce more innovative (disruptive) work than larger teams.

These findings may be surprising to some, especially given the increased glorification of group work in education and investments in collaboration tools for businesses. However, after reviewing the takeaways from The Times’ article and taking a closer look at the study, I must admit that I was not surprised. Growing up I had the opportunity to experience small and large classroom sizes (from 10 to 300 individuals), as well as have exposure to a relatively larger work environment before joining Communiqué PR and our amazing team of seven.

For me, the smaller and sometimes more focused environments were the ones where I witnessed a greater impact and felt more comfortable contributing and questioning creative ideas. Of course, I recognize that this is my personal anecdote and that an individual’s comfort level to participate within larger groups can largely vary; however, my experiences echo the findings from the study and might be interesting to consider when scheduling your next meeting.

Further, from my experience participating in different sized internal and external planning and brainstorming meetings at Communiqué PR, I’ve witnessed that some of the most productive meetings occur when the group size is small (two to four individuals), and where participants are focused and feel comfortable being vulnerable and taking risks with their ideas. I would specify that in addition to group size, the overall attitude of the group and its receptiveness to ideas are vital elements that can impact the success of the meeting and its results.   

Why small groups?

The research team developed a series of tests to determine how group size could impact effectiveness of results. They created a “disruption” ranking system based on citation patterns in past research papers by examining the frequency and content of citations, not the number of citations listed.

Through this ranking system they analyzed the group size of the team responsible for the papers securing the highest number of citations. Through this analysis they found the team size of these groups were often smaller. This then outlined a pattern, that “smaller groups were more likely to produce novel findings than larger ones. Those novel contributions usually took a year or so to catch on, after which, larger research teams did the work of consolidating the ideas and solidifying the evidence.”

This pattern illustrated that with every person added to a group or project, the results become less innovative or disruptive. 

When to work alone?

Despite the creativity that can stem from small groups, the study also highlights the power of individual work. Suparna Rajaram, a professor of psychology at Stony Brook University, shares, “The product of three individuals working separately is greater than if those three people collaborate as a group. When brainstorming, people produce fewer ideas when working in groups than when working alone.”

Dr. Rajaram’s insight is also important to consider and rings true. Prior to brainstorm meetings at Communiqué PR we’ll take time to think of ideas alone, so that we can come to the meeting ready to share, create and critique as needed.  

What does the future hold for large groups?

Despite different evidence around the benefits of small groups, it is important to note that there is still a place for large groups. The report highlights how “large consortiums are still important drivers of progress, but they are best suited to confirm or consolidate novel findings, rather than generating them.”

This perspective calls attention to the need for diversity of group sizes in order to bring creative ideas to life. For example, a small group can come up with a creative or ground-breaking idea, however, in order to implement and bring change, a larger group is often required for development.

The idea of “small groups disrupt, and large groups develop” is an interesting idea to consider when evaluating how to increase productive or creative results in meetings. For example, does your culture embrace or encourage group work (large and small)? Is your team one that suggests disruption or creates development? Can you or your team thrive in group sessions or are there too many distractions?  Is your team efficient in solo idea generation? Are ideas actionable?

These questions can help to better approach group work and creating a balance of large and small teams moving forward. Further, the reports’ findings are a helpful reminder that while we don’t want to diminish or discourage practices that generate creativity, we must also consider reality and the ability to develop ideas into action.