Your cart is currently empty!
Why Small Teams Need a Leader! (Research vs. 12 Years of Experience)
I believe that (and science supports me in this) every team needs to be led! That doesn’t mean that every task requires a team, but not leading a small team has led to low performance and conflict in my 12 years of experience as a leader. So why is it so important to lead a small team?
The leader is responsible for coordinating efforts, removing obstacles, and pointing out a clear direction. Not leading a small team increases internal conflict, creates confusion, makes work inefficient, and demotivates the employees. This increases the risk of employees silently quitting or changing jobs.
Leading is many times confused with managing, and this is a huge mistake! If you want to make sure that you are leading your team, then this is the article for you. Let’s go!
What Is a Small Team?
In the arena of business, a small team is 2-10 people. Anything above that is considered large. On the other hand, in science and research, small teams usually mean 2- 3 people.
For the purpose of this article, we will use the business definition. Although for it to become not just ten people in a group but also a team, there needs to be a common goal that the individuals collaborate in achieving.
If there is no common goal or collaboration, then we merely have a gathering of people, and all the benefits of teamwork are lost.
We have identified in this article that entrepreneurial teams are more likely than lone entrepreneurs to generate greater growth. The reasons appear to relate to a distribution of resources and social capital, the plurality of experience, and enhanced capability for sense-making and problem-solving.
Exploring Distributed Leadership in the Small Business Context
Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Teams
Newton’s third law of motion states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In team leadership, we have something similar. For every decision we make, we have trade-offs and gains. When we build a large team, we have more human resources, but it gets harder to utilize those resources effectively.
As we move towards a smaller team, we are faster in changing direction and implementing new ideas, but we lose consistency and predictability.
| Small Teams | Advantages | Disadvantages |
| Solving complex problems faster and better | Struggling with big projects and short deadlines | |
| Minimizing bureaucracy and optimizing for fast communication | Limited capacity for diverse competence |
1. Solving Complex Problems Faster and Better
One of the most studied and scientifically confirmed benefits of a small team structure is the ability to solve incredibly complex tasks requiring innovation and creativity.
The small teams do this faster and more effectively than their larger counterparts. This means that small teams should be optimized for complex tasks where dynamics and the environment are constantly changing.
2. Minimizing Bureaucracy and Optimizing for Fast Communication
Getting to know someone and truly understanding them so that you can talk in a way that is respectful and effective takes time. This process is hard to speed up and gets even more difficult as more people are on your team.
Small teams can communicate goals and ideas across the team effectively since there is only a limited number of people you need to get to know.
Your ability as a leader to align how your people understand ideas with how you formulate messages is vital for effective small-team communication.
This inter-team member’s understanding minimizes the need for bureaucracy and external control. Instead of filling out an application form and having it signed by a manager, effective small teams use direct communications face-to-face.
3. Struggling With Big Projects and Short Deadlines
While small teams handle complex environments and rapidly change very well (if led correctly), they need more resources for bigger projects and shorter time frames.
There is no way for a small team to innovate, test, and implement at the same speed as large teams. It’s just a matter of capacity.
A large team can simultaneously test three or more ideas, working parallel. In contrast, a small team would have to work sequentially, greatly extending the timeframe needed to complete the task.
Larger teams have the ability to dedicate individuals to specific tasks. While on small teams, people usually have one or more primary functions once the projects get bigger.
There are also only so many things a few people can be experts in, and that leads us to one of the biggest challenges of small teams.
4. Limited Capacity for Diverse Competence
You want people who are experts in their area, and you want these individuals to be highly productive. But what if you have a project which is so multi-disciplinary that you may need 20 experts in different arenas?
This is one of the most brutal punches to the small team concept. If we assume that most people can only be an expert in one or maybe two areas, then for every area of expertise, you need one person.
How many experts do you need to solve your task? Five or nine, maybe ten? Quickly the team grows big and starts losing the small team benefits. There are ways to get around this, which I will not discuss in this article (but please email me if you want to dive a little deeper into the topic).
Leading vs. Managing Small Teams
The word “leader” often gets thrown around and sometimes is even used interchangeably with “manager.” We must be very clear that there is a huge difference between leading and managing.
There is also a huge difference in how we lead and manage small vs. large teams. And if we screw this up, people get demotivated, and efficiency drops.
Leading is defined as:
Forbes.com
Leadership is a process of social influence that maximizes the efforts of others toward the achievement of a goal.
Management, on the other hand, is defined:
Management (or managing) is the administration of an organization, whether it is a business, a non-profit organization, or a government body. It is the art and science of managing the resources of the business.
Leading, therefore, puts people and relations at the focus, and managing emphasizes processes, workflows, and organization.
To be great leaders, we must be able to manage effectively!
Lead People and Manage the Organization
We all hate being managed, especially micro-managed, and now we know why. It makes us feel like we are a “resource of the business” and not like human beings with wants, needs, and dreams.
But the organization needs to be managed, emails must be sent, and processes must be evaluated and improved. Managing is characterized by control, oversight, and a strict framework.
Managing is characterized by control, oversight, and a strict framework.
Leadership, on the other hand, is about understanding the qualities of individuals and ensuring each member can exploit his or her strength so that both the organization and the individual can reach the next level.
If we mix this up and apply too much control, oversight, and an overly strict framework on humans, they will lose their creativity and will to work. They will start to anticipate being managed, and they will hand over all responsibility to the manager, and why shouldn’t they? That’s exactly how you are training them to do it.
We should instead lead our people by understanding what makes them get out of bed in the morning, what makes them put up with the long working hours and average pay.
Then you will see what I saw on my last 6-man team, incredible engagement, individuals taking ownership of tasks, solving problems before anyone ever noticed, and deeply trusting each other.
So start leading your team and manage the organization!
Don’t Miss Out on the Unique Benefit of the Small Team
Have you ever heard about small teams outperforming big ones? While this is often true, this is not always the case. A study by Harvard concluded that small teams are only more effective at certain tasks:
Our analyses uncovered a nearly universal pattern: whereas large teams tended to develop and further existing ideas and designs, their smaller counterparts tended to disrupt current ways of thinking with new ideas, inventions, and opportunities.
hbr.org
There are a few explanations for the small team’s ability to innovate and be creative.
Taking risks requires a supportive environment where individuals won’t be afraid of failing. This requires trust, which is very hard to build on a large-scale team where high-quality face-to-face time is little to none.
What matters most to collaboration is not the personalities, attitudes, or behavioral styles of team members. Instead, what teams need to thrive are certain “enabling conditions.”
hbr.org
The small teams, on the other hand, are able to gain inter-team member trust and create the necessary environment quickly. If this is coupled with a leader who can clearly communicate the goals (which is easier and faster on a small team), innovation can flourish.
A compelling direction, a strong structure, and a supportive context
hbr.org
The trust and confidence that your work buddy is doing on his or her part should not be taken for granted. On a large team, it can be a real problem.
Research shows that individuals in larger teams perform worse than individuals in smaller teams; however, very little field research examines why.
sciencedirect.com
Importance of Having a Leader on a Small Team
So far in this article, we have discussed the birds’ view of why teams need to be led. Before we start talking about decisions that will set you up for success, I want to look at two central tasks of a great leader.
1. The Leader Is Dedicated to Understanding the Bigger Picture
What is the team’s role in the organization? What is the team’s role in the employee’s life? And how do these best merge so that the greatest outcome can be generated over the longest time?
These are questions that the leader of small teams should be focusing on. The benefits will include better employee retention, increased engagement, and a more innovative problem-solving team.
2. Anticipation of Future Events and Removing Obstacles
One big mistake I see in many leaders, specifically new leaders, is sharing too much information with their employees. This can significantly cause unnecessary confusion or anxiety.
This is especially true when the organization is in a big transition that will impact employees. If the leader shares every bit of available information, team members will get anxious (the obstacle) for no reason.
But if the leader shares too little, the employees will feel left out (the obstacle), and trust will start to fade.
This is a fine line to tread, but when done correctly, the team can focus on the task at hand and still feel comfortable that they will receive the vital information.
Three Major Decisions That Will Set Your Small Team Up for Success (Or Failure…)
When it comes to structuring and building your small team, a few decisions have shown to be vital to get right if you want to develop an effective and long-lasting team.
… the most powerful and constructive ways for leaders to help their teams succeed is to get those basic conditions in place, since their presence increases the probability that a team will evolve naturally into an effective performing unit.
web.mit.edu
This part of the article is a compound of the scientific literature and my own twelve years of experience as a leader of both small and large-sized teams.
1. What Kind of Team to Create
It must first be noted that not all tasks should be given to a team. Some work, such as creative writing, where an idea formed inside an individual’s head is brought onto paper and structured so that others can understand it, is best left to an individual.
Some questions that need to be answered when deciding what kind of team to create are:
Does the task need constant teamwork, or is it rather a merging of the products of individuals?
Does the work happen in parallel, or will it be handed over between the individuals sequentially?
Will the tasks mainly be solved virtually or “face to face”?
2. How to Structure the Team
Teams vs. Groups of People
First of all, the leader and the team must work together to build a real team.
“Real teams” differ from a “group of people” because they have three distinct features.
First, there is a membership that is exclusive and clear to the members. Second, team members need each other to complete the task. And third, membership lasts longer, allowing the individuals to establish effective ways of communicating and effective cooperation.
Clearly Articulate a Direction That Is Accepted and Motivates the Team
We have all heard that goal setting is essential and that it can be the difference between succeeding and failing. It is also vital that this goal leaves the abstract world of the mind and becomes tangible so that it can be visualized and articulated to those responsible for fulfilling it.
But a tangible and specific goal will only do the team much good if it is also accepted and acts as a motivator. Once the team is on board and understands why this specific goal is important to the organization and to them as people, we start seeing workplace magic.
Increased performance, engagement, and well-being will follow.
3. How and When to Actively Lead the Team
Leading can be done in many different ways. Usually, we think of actively engaging with the team by giving directions, clarifying issues, or coaching through a specific task.
But leading is also choosing not to engage with the team or the individual. Sometimes, the leader will step aside and let the team do its thing. This is not to be confused with passive leadership, where the leader cannot engage because of fear and incompetence.
Before choosing how to lead the team, we must first understand what we want to achieve. If we are looking for an increase in performance on our team, then we, as leaders, should focus on setting up a clear direction and then identifying and removing obstacles.
But suppose the leader aims to increase the team’s engagement with the team’s goals. In that case, he or she should focus on finding challenging but not impossible tasks, build team commitment through real team building, and minimize social loafing by adding accountability to the team’s work structure.
