Keep the Core Team Small
Team size has a big impact on team performance in a crisis.
Key Takeaways
Maintain a small core team for critical incidents. Team size significantly impacts incident management performance, yet it is often overlooked. Large teams excel at brainstorming but are slow in decision-making, while smaller teams are action-oriented but lack analytical power and expertise. In a critical incident, we seek the brainpower and collective wisdom of a large group combined with the decisiveness of a small one.
Based on our experience, these simple tips works well:
Teams with 4-6 active members (excluding note-takers and observers) are significantly more effective. Teams with 7+ active members tend to be inefficient and underperform. On the other hand, teams with 3 or fewer members lack the necessary expertise and resources for effective leadership in handling critical incidents.
Avoid assembling a large team at the onset of a critical incident. Most organisation make this mistake since they tend to bring everyone (and all the managers) to the table when a crisis hits. While activating resources and support teams early is good, creating one “mega team” is terrible - it usually compromises incident management performance from the start.
Utilize multiple teams instead of creating a mega-team. When additional resources are needed, create support teams rather than expanding the core incident management team. These support teams should also be kept small (4-6 members) to ensure efficiency. The IFRC CIM structure serves as an example of scaling larger CIM teams.
Implement a substitution system to maintain a small core team. If someone is added to the core team, someone else must leave (if the team is already at maximum size). Communicate the substitution system clearly from the outset, emphasizing that it is a normal and expected practice, not a punishment. Substitutions are crucial to inject expertise and diverse perspectives into the core team without hindering effectiveness.
Make team size a collective responsibility. The teams has a collectively responsibility to stay small and efficient - lives may be at stake. If the team grows to big and becomes inefficient, speak up!
More Reasons To Keep the Team Small
Here are more reasons, based on our experience:
Better Decision Quality: Smaller teams often achieve better decision quality as there are fewer voices and perspectives to consider., yet enough to make a good decision (if you have 4-7 people around the table). This reduces the potential for information overload and groupthink, enabling more thorough analysis and critical thinking during decision-making.
Rapid Decision-Making: Smaller teams are more agile and can make decisions quickly, enabling prompt responses to crisis situations without getting bogged down in bureaucratic processes or lengthy deliberations.
Clear Communication: With fewer members, communication within a smaller team is more streamlined and efficient. Information can be shared more easily, ensuring everyone is on the same page and enabling faster coordination.
Enhanced Coordination: Smaller teams facilitate better coordination among members, as there are fewer individuals to align and synchronize. This improves the overall effectiveness of collaborative efforts during crisis management.
Flexibility and Adaptability: Smaller teams can quickly adapt to changing circumstances and adjust their strategies as needed. They are more nimble in responding to evolving challenges.
Improved Focus: Smaller teams can maintain better focus on critical tasks and priorities. With fewer distractions and a clearer understanding of responsibilities, team members can direct their attention and efforts toward key objectives, leading to more efficient outcomes.
Increased Accountability: In smaller teams, individual accountability is more evident as responsibilities are distributed among fewer members. This accountability fosters a sense of ownership and motivation.
Greater Cohesion and Trust: Smaller teams foster stronger bonds and interpersonal relationships among members. Trust and mutual understanding are easier to establish, enhancing collaboration, cohesion, and teamwork during high-pressure situations.