Group Size, Group Development, and Group Productivity
- 16 January 2009
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Small Group Research
- Vol. 40 (2), 247-262
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328703
Abstract
This research investigated the impact of small and large work groups on developmental processes and group productivity. There were 329 work groups operating in for-profit and nonprofit organizations across the United States in this study. Groups containing 3 to 8 members were significantly more productive and more developmentally advanced than groups with 9 members or more. Groups containing 3 to 6 members were significantly more productive and more developmentally advanced than groups with 7 to 10 members or 11 members or more. The groups with 7 to 10 members or 11 members were not different from each other. Finally, groups containing 3 to 4 members were significantly more productive and more developmentally advanced on a number of measures than groups with 5 to 6 members. Work-group size is a crucial factor in increasing or decreasing both group development and productivity.Keywords
This publication has 41 references indexed in Scilit:
- Experiences in GroupsPublished by Taylor & Francis Ltd ,2003
- Individual Performance as a Function of Group Contingencies and Group SizeJournal of Organizational Behavior Management, 1989
- Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987
- The Group Attitude ScaleSmall Group Behavior, 1986
- Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality as a Function of Group SizeThe Journal of Creative Behavior, 1974
- Group Size, Member Dissatisfaction, and Group RadicalismHuman Relations, 1974
- THE INTERACTION OF GROUP SIZE AND TASK STRUCTURE IN AN INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION1Personnel Psychology, 1973
- Effects of Task and Group Size Upon Group Productivity and Member SatisfactionSociometry, 1971
- A Theory of Group DevelopmentHuman Relations, 1956
- Channels of Communication in Small GroupsAmerican Sociological Review, 1951