Group Size and Split the Bill Problem!

Are larger or smaller groups better to get work done? Research on groups and teams tells us that there is an optimum group size (150- Dunbar Number) beyond which groups/teams become dysfunctional. Hence the need to split groups into smaller operational units once the number of people in the group exceeds 150.

What seems to be the problem? What do we mean by dysfunctionality? What happens in a larger society as compared to a smaller neighborhood? Why is it difficult to get work done through groups?

The other day I was reading about Venkat Krishnan (an IIMA graduate) and his entrepreneurial venture – Give India. He made a few interesting observations:

• He had traveled across the USA and he had found that the middle class there had a high sense of ownership.
• He compared this to the lack of ownership of the Indian middle class. He mentioned what Gandhi had said in the early 20^th century – that the Indian middle class would be the instrument to freedom.

This set me thinking. Tim Harford talks of Split the Bill problem. When there are multiple people involved, but no one has a significantly high majority stake and no one has individual accountability - then everyone tries to maximize individual pleasure/benefit and not look at the total picture. The summation of individual benefits doesn’t lead to an optimum solution at the group level.

I remember a study of different organizational types that concluded privately held organizations, or those with majority stakeholders, seem to do better than listed organizations (without any majority stakeholders).

One thing seems to be clear. Driving ownership and individual accountability seems to become harder as an organization grows in size. Probably that’s the reason why high growth organizations sometimes realize that stories of ‘discretion’ from across seem to thin down as they become larger.

Similarly, given India’s large population, driving ownership amongst citizens is a greater challenge than the challenge might be in countries with lesser population.

So what is the solution for organizations of large size? What can they do to make each employee take ownership for his/her decisions, which invariably would also impact his/her eco-system?

I can think of a few solutions:

• There are advantages of clearly delineating job responsibilities/duties but it also seems to drive unintended consequences. One of these unintended consequences is the mindset ‘My work is my work. Please don’t intrude into it. Your work is your work. I won’t intrude into it.’ In this case the team/group is just a collation of individuals. There are no synergies that emerge from having a team work on a problem. So the challenge is to ensure that job responsibilities specify/highlight what are the minimum expected requirements from the job while at the same time ensuring that employees are encourage to go beyond their job descriptions. How can this be done?
• ‘We can help others if we know what they are working on.’ This means that everyone needs to have clarity on what everyone else is working on. This would enable everyone to understand how their own actions might be impacting others and consequently take corrective action. This, along with understanding and accepting the larger organizational goal, would also form basis for collaboration amongst individuals/teams.

My proposed solution rests on the assumption that individuals are willing to extend themselves for purposes beyond their own immediate benefit.

What other solutions can you think of to drive ownership in large teams?

-

Sourav