4 ms·

Companies increase team size because they want to increase overall output, not per-person output. Even if 20 people produce half as much per person as 5 people,

Companies increase team size because they want to increase overall output, not per-person output. Even if 20 people produce half as much per person as 5 people, they’re still getting twice as much done. (The other answers take a cynical “managers suck!” stance, which isn’t entirely wrong, but it’s not the main reason. Companies mainly add people because they want more output, simple as that.)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bee_rider 2y ago
Could it also be the case that some people just aren’t suited for small teams? I don’t have any experience actually handling this sort of thing, so here’s some rampant speculation instead: A small team of motivated rockstars might be the fastest way to solve a problem. But, there are a lot of non-rockstars out there. Maybe marshaling up a little talent from a lot of people is more feasible for some organizations/problems (in particular some types of problems might be boring, and not attractive to a team of rockstars).
- llm_trw 2y ago
  Rockstars expect rockstar compensation. I find that pretty much all managers balk at the idea of paying someone more than they get paid, but are happy for total payroll to be stratospheric. Until we deal with this mental illness we will always have expensive shit software written by huge teams.
Espressosaurus 2y ago
Yeah. Increases in team size typically mean an increase in specialization and a decrease in productivity because of the larger amount of communication that must be done to keep everyone moving in the same direction. I was responsible for a lot more at a small company, and I only had to convince one other person if I wanted to do something within my corner. At a large company, I may have to convince representatives from teams representing > 100 people. That takes time. But as an organization, we can solve problems that weren't possible to solve at the small company due to lack of resources and lack of people who could sit heads down and work on a problem for 6 months due to their other responsibilities.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bee_rider 2y ago

Could it also be the case that some people just aren’t suited for small teams? I don’t have any experience actually handling this sort of thing, so here’s some rampant speculation instead: A small team of motivated rockstars might be the fastest way to solve a problem. But, there are a lot of non-rockstars out there. Maybe marshaling up a little talent from a lot of people is more feasible for some organizations/problems (in particular some types of problems might be boring, and not attractive to a team of rockstars).

llm_trw 2y ago
Rockstars expect rockstar compensation. I find that pretty much all managers balk at the idea of paying someone more than they get paid, but are happy for total payroll to be stratospheric. Until we deal with this mental illness we will always have expensive shit software written by huge teams.

Espressosaurus 2y ago

Yeah. Increases in team size typically mean an increase in specialization and a decrease in productivity because of the larger amount of communication that must be done to keep everyone moving in the same direction. I was responsible for a lot more at a small company, and I only had to convince one other person if I wanted to do something within my corner. At a large company, I may have to convince representatives from teams representing > 100 people. That takes time. But as an organization, we can solve problems that weren't possible to solve at the small company due to lack of resources and lack of people who could sit heads down and work on a problem for 6 months due to their other responsibilities.