Reasons for Smaller Teams
Not to single anyone out but we come from a world of big multi-national companies such as Coca-Cola, General Motors, China National Petroleum, etc. Back then these companies made all their fortune by getting really good at manufacturing a set of products. Then the 90s rolled around, we woke up and were building companies, bigger than any of the previous ones by writing software…
As new issues under this new industry arrived, we “made it work” with our old processes. And that’s the human thing to do: Get to a potential solution via the shortest path (we’re really good at it!)
When we found ourselves in this new “writing software” world we were already in panic mode. And we had to deal with the outcomes:
- Missed deadlines
- Unreliable systems
- Solutions to problems that didn’t need solving
- Wrong solution
- User confusion
- And a few others…
(Yup, the list above sucks and I don’t think anyone would like their name to be synonymous with any one item.)
While trying to figure out what actually caused the problems above, we found the usual suspects: unclear goals and communication, or lack thereof.
The implications of such problems are worse than expected as there can be a number of affected parties, such as: the users of the product, the team who builds the product and the organization.
Ok enough about problems, let’s get to a happier place
What we’ve learned over time is that we’re not very good at handling complex systems with unknown variables. That is, systems involving more than one person, different cultures, multiple personalities, users, needs, expectations, business rules, revenue, etc. And somehow we’ve managed to convince ourselves that we can manage the above while executing flawlessly just by working harder.
Sometimes the answer lies in the most primitive and least “trendy” solution, break the problem into smaller pieces.
This has worked for me, my team and people I know in similar roles.
What this translates to is the following list:
- Create smaller teams (max of 5)
The smaller the team, the easier it is to communicate and stay on the same page. - Give them a problem to solve with clear direction
Nobody wants to do terrible work. In fact, most people are willing to go above and beyond under the right circumstances. This point is about giving people a clear problem to solve rather than a limited solution. - Provide them with the autonomy necessary to reach their goals
Whenever possible, decrease the amount of external dependencies as those tend to create delays and confusion and add little value. - Create an open environment that promotes communication
Most great work happens in environments where everyone feels empowered to express their opinion and feels heard. In fact, most great solutions out there are no-one’s idea but rather a collaborative effort. - Promote diversity
Create an environment where everyone is not the same. Diverse teams create stronger products where all parties are represented, a more engaged team and stronger company culture among many more. - Give them the adequate resources needed to do the job
This is to say, give your team the tools necessary to be extremely successful and have fun while doing it. After all, you can’t expect the world without putting your fair share into it. - Be there for your team when needed
As a leader, you are better off acting as a coordinator, facilitator, helper rather than getting in the middle and potentially blocking or breaking the flow. - Trust the team
Now that the foundation has been set for the team to succeed, it’s time for the easiest part of all, step aside and trust the team.
All in all, smaller teams allow for better communication flow, introduce less redundancies, create a sense of community, and decreases the chances to have misunderstandings and releases that never see the light of the day.
Footnotes
https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/how-we-work.md#in-self-sufficient-independent-teams
