Ideal group sizes
Art of Hosting, Collaboration, Conversation, Design, Facilitation
First of all there is no such thing.
Second, a friend asked me the question “What is the idea group size for collaborative process?” and in trying to answert the question I emailed him the following (please note that this is all off the top of my head, and in practice I usually go with intuition, relying more on patterns than rules):
Innovation generally starts with individuals, so I like to build time into to processes for people to just be quiet and think for a bit. Small groups can help refine and test good ideas, and large groups can help propagate ideas and connect them to larger patterns. In small group work, in general, working with an odd number is helpful because it creates an instability that keeps the group moving. If you want solidity, you work with even numbers. So it goes like something this:
1 = innovation, idea generation, inspiration and commitment
2 = Pairs are good for long and exploratory conversations, interviews, and partnering
3 = Good number for a small team to rapidly prototype a new idea
4 = A good number for a deep exploration. You benefit from having two pairs together, and from having a little more diversity in the group than in two.
5 = good number for a design team; there is always an instability in a group of five and good diversity, but the group is not so large that people get left out.
6 = Good for noticing patterns, and summing up. A group of six can be entered from three pairs coming together as well, allowing for insights gathered in pairs to be rolled up.
7 = At this scale we are losing the intimacy we need for conversation, and so generally I will work a group of seven into 3 and 4 if we need to break up.
8 = is too big. And it is no coincidence that big conferences are boring, because most hotels have tables that can accomodate 8, 9, or 10 people which is too many for real conversation. At these scales, people start to be able to dominate and introverts dry right up.
It is a good practice to use a huge group (like in the dozens or hundreds) to source the diversity that is needed for good dynamic small groups, and then to find ways to propagate ideas from the very small to the very large.
Your ability to see how things work, and describe it, is always so helpful.
Another thing I experience with those too-big tables of 8 or 10 is that the distance across the table can be too far to hear well, and so people sometimes default to talking just with the people closest to them. You end up with several groups of two and three, even when everyone’s still talking about the same topic.
Yes…sometimes when people ask me how big a table can be, I tell them “Big enough that you can reach out and touch someone across it. That way, we are assured accountability for our words!”
One wonders how the world ever got anything done before the advent of tables? How on earth could we have met effectively, came to a conclusion, or moved ourselves to action without that big, flat surface inbetween all of us? OK, just a bit of sarcasm there, however I’d love to see a corporate board room without one. I wonder what wonder would be created?
Hi, chris! I have a question.
Are the smaller groups of 3 or two, divided from a larger group, given different or specific tasks? if so, how would they collaborate and propagate the ideas with the other group working on distinct matters?
Depends on your purpose Ayesha. That is a design question. You need to think about why you are dividing a group and then decide in these questions together.
For some processes you want them working on the same task and that way you get a diversity of perspectives on the same thing. World cafe does this very well.
In other cases, you want them working on different tasks and that way a lot of different things get done in a short period of time. Open Space Technology is based on this principle.
Bottom line, ask the question: what are we trying to do and how will small groups help us? Then make the design choices.