Group Size, Group Development, and Group Productivity

337 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Dimensions and their poles: A metric and topological approach to opposites (2011, background): “…& Argote, 1995), that they more readilyovercome fixation in problem-solving (Smith, Bushouse, & Lord, 2010, also known as functional fixedness, Duncker, 1945), they are more creative (De Dreu, Nijstad, & van Knippenberg, 2008), and that a group size of three to four is optimal (Wheelan, 2009).”
Entrepreneurial talent and venture performance: A meta-analytic investigation of SMEs (2013, background): “Although the positive effect of eam size on performance has been indicated (Cooper and Bruno, 977; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Penrose, 1959), greater eam size does not guarantee performance (Wheelan, 2009), as hallenges of coordination and communication arise (Bales and orgatta, 1962).”
An Exploratory Study of Group Development and Team Learning (2015, methodology): “…that, in contrast to other development models, this model has been validated empirically in a number of studies using different methods and with teams from different organizational contexts (Wheelan, 2005, 2009; Wheelan, Davidson, & Tilin, 2003; Wheelan & Hochberger, 1996; Wheelan & McKeage, 1993).”