DIRECTIVE 114 / CONTROL

MAKE THE TEAM BIGGER

Solve coordination problems by adding more people to coordinate.

Invite every relevant manager, specialist, and stakeholder to every project discussion. Keep the same approval model while expanding the group. When decisions slow down, conclude that more alignment is needed and enlarge the next meeting.

THE MECHANISM

Team expansion that increases coordination burden without decision clarity.

Primary: CONTROLBELONGINGPOWER
RATIONALE
Larger teams increase available human capital and make exclusion harder to explain.
SUCCESS INDICATOR
Every decision has enough stakeholders to require a second meeting about how the first meeting will make the decision.
COMMON FAILURE
Sizing teams to the task and recognizing that additional human capital can be offset by coordination and process losses depending on task complexity and interdependence.
THE UNFORTUNATE PART

Evidence, with limitations.

Claim

Team size has no universal positive or negative effect on performance. Meta-analytic evidence shows large contextual variation, with benefits from added human capital in some tasks and process losses where coordination demands dominate.

Evidence

A meta-analysis of more than 21,000 teams found the average relationship between team size and task performance was essentially zero but highly variable; task complexity and coordination requirements helped explain when larger teams helped or hurt.

Scientific boundary: Team-size effects are moderated by task interdependence and coordination; neither larger nor smaller teams are uniformly superior.

Sources

These references offer context, not a completed review or a test of this instruction.