The size of the group is an important force to consider.
Much of the research from which the information on group size has been taken has been summarized by A. P. Hare, Laboratory of Social Relations, Harvard University. In many cases little can be done to control the actual number of people in an organization or at a meeting. In other cases, such as committee appointments, control can be exercised.
Size is of particular importance in deciding what group techniques to use under certain conditions to accomplish specific goals. Certain techniques are better suited to smaller groups. Other techniques are better suited for larger groups. Yet other techniques, such as buzz groups, are designed to obtain some of the .mall group advantages when working with larger groups. Size, like other vectors, has relevance mainly in terms of what the group is trying to accomplish.
Size is one variable that may limit the amount and quality of communication that can take place between individual group members. Thus as size increases, each group member has a more complicated set of social relations to fulfill, and as the number increases, he has proportionally less time to maintain them. There is evidence that an increasing proportions of group members report feelings of threat, frustration, tension, and inhibition to participate as group size increases.
As size increases, there is a greater tendency to move to more formal procedure such as regular parliamentary procedure. With increasing size there seems to be a tendency to strive less for consensus or unanimity. Rather, there seems to be a tendency for the group to reach solutions or decisions without exploring the points of view of all group members, and with less concern for whether or not all group members agree with the solution or decision. Unresolved differences seem to be more acceptable or are at least tolerated in larger groups.
It is generally agreed that increased size is usually accompanied by increased difficulty in coordinating group activities. In larger groups there is a tendency for the formation of small subgroups, often with spokesmen emerging as representatives of the smaller groups. There is evidence to suggest that as groups increase in size, it is more difficult for group members to perceive of other group members as distinct individual entities. Rather they are perceived as members of subgroups or cliques and there is a tendency to deal with them on a non particularized basis. Efficient operation in larger groups requires more skill from group members and leaders. However, it does appear that as individuals become more mature, they can more effectively associate in larger groups.
In a study of decision-making groups, with a size range from 4 to 16, the following tentative generalizations were made:
As the size of group is increased from 5 to 12, the degree of member consensus resulting from the discussion decreases when the time for discussion is limited.
Group members in the smaller groups will change their opinions more toward consensus than will those in the groups of 12 or more.
As groups become larger than 12 there seems to be a trend toward factionalism.
In larger groups the group leaders have less influence and group members feel less satisfied with the discussion because of lack of time to express themselves. Primary groups are more satisfying to group members when they are sufficiently small to give each person a chance to take a full part in the discussion. In the larger group the interaction between members is more limited and the group members tend to have an increasing feeling that their individual opinion is not important and not worth presenting to the group.
Some of the studies in industry have shown that employees in small work groups are more satisfied than those in large work groups. It is doubtful that there is any magic number that is associated with the “best” size group. Efficient sizes may vary with the task, the time available, the maturity of the group, or the amount of follow-up action wanted. However, small group research does have some findings that may have importance in making committee appointments or subdividing larger groups for certain tasks. Small groups (four to six) of even numbers have higher rates of disagreement and antagonism than do groups of odd numbers (three, five, and seven). There is some evidence that discussion groups of five are the best size.
The explanation for five as the “best” size may lie in several factors: (1) this size allows sufficient opportunity for each individual to participate and yet enough members are present to draw on for content and to make it worthwhile; (2) there is not the possibility of a strict deadlock (as with even numbers); (3) if the group splits, it tends to split into a majority of three and minority of two, so that being in the minority does not isolate anyone individual; and (4) the group seems large enough for members to shift roles easily and thus any group member may play a role purely for discussion’s sake or withdraw from an awkward position.
While most of the evidence cited seems to indicate that increasing size creates problems in group efficiency, this does not lead to the logical conclusion that all groups should be small. From the very practical point of view we know that many formal groups will continue to be large; 20, 50, 100 or more. However, as the sizes of our groups increase, we should be aware of the fact that different degrees of human relations skills are required and we may have to choose different objectives and techniques and be willing to accept different levels of group standards in some cases. As pointed out by Bales, Hare, and Borgatta:
Many abilities or resources needed in task performance tend to have an additive character. The kinds of resources which are of this order, in respect to tasks, may include such things as the number of items of information which can be absorbed and recalled, the number of critical judgments available to correct errors of information and inference, the number of ideas or suggestions available for solution of problems, the range of values that are likely to be brought to bear, as well a the range of technical skills, abilities, and amount of muscular power that is available to implement decisions.
To this may be added the point that in terms of motivation to action, participation in the decision-making and planning process seems to lead to greater motivation to action and follow-through. Though the larger group involvement brings with it some problems in group management, it may well be the most efficient means to accomplish desired action in the long run. In many phases of social action, numbers as such may be an important factor in making a desired impact on other interest groups, community or public a better government league of 500 “solid citizens” will probably have greater impact on public opinion and action than a committee of five.
What About Your Group?
- Does your group take its size into consideration when planning for group involvement and participation?
- Does your group utilize group techniques that might aid in getting small group intimacy and personal relations?
- Is your group large enough that special attention should be given to effective group communications?
- Is your group large enough that special attention should be given to organizational structure?
- Is your group of the size that there can be a more or less informal role definition or is it large enough that special attention should be given to more formal role definition?
- Is your group a worshiper of large numbers? With what size group can the group’s purposes really be best served?