Ideal Team Size: Striking the Right Balance

In the ever-evolving landscape of technology and software development, one question often arises: What is the ideal team size? As organizations grow and adapt, team structures can significantly influence productivity, engagement, and overall success. In this post, we will explore different team configurations, their advantages and disadvantages, and share personal experiences that can help guide your decision-making process.

My Team Structure

In my organization, we have chosen to split our workforce into three distinct teams, comprising 5, 6 (with 1 Quality Engineer), and 6 (with 1 Quality Engineer) engineers, alongside two Technical Project Managers (TPMs) and two Engineering Managers (EMs) reporting directly to me. This setup has provoked me to reflect on how other companies structure their teams and the effectiveness of those structures.

Perspectives on Team Sizes

Embracing Larger Teams

One director shared their shift from favoring smaller teams (fewer than five members) to advocating for larger teams (8-10 members) comprised predominantly of senior engineers. Here are some key advantages and disadvantages of larger teams:

Advantages:

• Efficient Meetings: A single, longer meeting can accommodate everyone, minimizing the need for multiple gatherings.
• Reduced Cross-Team Overhead: Teams can operate with less administrative burden, allowing leads to focus on their core responsibilities.
• Comprehensive Perspective: All team members are kept in the loop, providing a holistic view of projects and processes.
• Minimized Supporting Staff Needs: A larger team can handle more responsibilities internally without excessive support roles.
• Senior Collaboration: Senior engineers often thrive in environments with other skilled individuals, fostering a culture of mentorship and knowledge sharing.
• Branding and Output: A unified team can produce significant output under one name, enhancing visibility and recognition.
• Resilience: Larger teams can effectively absorb individual absences without significant disruption.
• Variety of Challenges: Team members can engage with a diverse array of problems, keeping work stimulating.
• Natural Collaboration: There is ample opportunity for collaboration and pair programming without the need for enforced cross-team activities.
• Streamlined Delivery: A larger, cohesive unit can execute complex projects with less coordination overhead.

Disadvantages:

• Change Resistance: Like a large aircraft carrier, it can be challenging to pivot or implement new processes.
• Extended Meetings: Meetings may become longer, which can lead to fatigue and decreased engagement.
• Sub-Streams: Larger teams often necessitate the creation of sub-teams, which can complicate communication.
• High Expectations: Technical leads and engineering managers must excel in their roles to maintain team effectiveness.

This director’s experience in a high-frequency trading company demonstrated that larger, more senior teams could achieve impressive results. Their initial skepticism gave way to success when they merged teams, noting increased engagement and productivity.

The Case for Smaller, Cross-Functional Teams

Conversely, another approach focuses on small, cross-functional teams, often referred to as “pods.” Each pod typically consists of one to two frontend engineers, one to two backend engineers, and one quality engineer. For every three pods, an engineering manager, product manager, and product designer provide essential support.

Advantages of Small Pods:

• Agility: Smaller teams can pivot quickly in response to changing requirements.
• Focused Expertise: Each team member can develop specialized skills while still contributing to a broader project.
• Enhanced Communication: With fewer members, communication tends to be more direct and efficient.
• Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration: Pods encourage diverse perspectives and collaboration across disciplines, leading to innovative solutions.

Disadvantages:

• Increased Coordination: More teams can lead to more complex coordination needs, particularly for larger projects.
• Resource Allocation: Smaller teams may struggle if key members are unavailable or stretched thin.

Finding the Right Balance

Ultimately, the ideal team size is contingent upon your organization’s goals, culture, and the nature of the projects you undertake. Here are some questions to consider when evaluating your team structures:

• What are the core competencies required for success in your projects?
• How do team members prefer to collaborate?
• What is the level of complexity in the projects your teams are managing?
• How do you measure productivity and engagement within your teams?

Conclusion

There is no one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to team size. Whether you choose to adopt larger teams with experienced members or smaller, agile pods, it is essential to remain flexible and open to evolution. The experiences shared here illustrate the importance of evaluating your team’s structure regularly and adjusting it to meet the demands of your projects and personnel.

What has been your experience with team sizes? Have you found success with larger teams or smaller, cross-functional pods? I invite you to share your thoughts and stories in the comments below, as we all can learn from each other’s experiences in this ever-changing

Related Posts

• Reorg and team carousel
• Are there exercises you’ve done that you’ve found useful when starting to manage a new team
• Thoughts on an optional oncall rotation
• Are there exercises you’ve done that you’ve found useful when starting to manage a new team?
• Asked to take opportunity of Product Owner for a Domain with 4 teams without Direct reports