AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« Treat me right! | Main | What were once capabilities are now stovepipes »


Glenn Gleason

I think you are dead on with smaller the better. As we have formed process improvement teams here at our firm - the smaller the team - the more focused the results. Even with large teams - I still see a small group of people actually getting the work done. The rest in many cases are casual observers who provide input - but not so much results. How have you sorted through this issue when initally forming the team? Do you have a method of deciding who is on the team and who really needs to be involved?

Graham Chastney

You are completely right. Small well focussed teams definitely produce more than large less focussed ones.

Joe Foote

Another great post Jeffrey - I've just quoted you over at my blog.

As with the comments above, I have seen this happen many times before. Personally, I think that the increased visibility and accountability in a small team is REALLY important. It's much more obvious when people aren't pulling their weight!

Doug Mitchell

I'm with you on this line of thinking. Funny thing is I've ALWAYS been thinking/feeling/acting this way...but the workforce always dinged me for it.

Most of today's start-ups follow this method without explicitly stating it. A couple of people making something really cool in 2 small bedroom offices across the globe are beating the pants off the big guys in many (most?) cases.

Your formula cuts dead weight before it drags any mojo out of the project team. I'd be inclined to bump my percentages to 25%.

buy viagra

Weed can provide for some people some kind of relaxation after a hard week of work, many use it for fun, those are call "everyday smokers". I don't see no wrong on people smoking weed, as long they behave and don't begin to do stupid things.

The comments to this entry are closed.