A very small, talented, and dedicated team is a scarce commodity

Recently, I watched an interview with Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple. In that video, he repeatedly mentioned that one of the biggest lessons he learned from Steve Jobs was that small teams can do amazing work. That got me thinking. Reflecting on more than a decade of experience across a dozen teams, I found this idea to hold true and align closely with my own experiences. The most successful projects I’ve ever shipped were those where the team was small. Jobs once said, “A small team of A+ players can run circles around a giant team of B and C players.” This quote also reminded me of what Elon Musk did at Twitter. Musk seems to advocate this management philosophy as well. In an earlier interview about Tesla, he commented, “A very small, talented, focused, and dedicated team that’s willing to take risks and make something happen—that’s a scarce commodity.”

But why do smaller teams often outperform larger ones? even when they have fairly similar talent pools?

When I look back, I recall being on a large team composed of mostly A players. Yet, smaller teams with the same caliber of talent managed to ship bigger and higher-quality products. On the surface, the answer seems simple: smaller teams enable greater agility and faster decision-making. They often communicate more effectively and maintain stronger alignment with project objectives. However, I believe the answer is more nuanced than this. While searching for deeper insights, I stumbled upon Parkinson’s Law.

Parkinson’s Law is the idea that “work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” This principle, introduced by Cyril Northcote Parkinson in a humorous essay published in The Economist in 1955, highlights inefficiencies in organizations. Parkinson observed that bureaucracies tend to grow irrespective of the actual workload due to people’s tendency to create tasks for themselves and others. Though satirical, his insights resonate broadly across industries and remain relevant in discussions about time management and productivity.

Parkinson’s Law sheds light on some of the inefficiencies I’ve witnessed. I recall projects where no matter how many engineers were added, they still failed to meet deadlines. Team members were confused about roles, and even when the work was completed, the quality often fell short of expectations.

In software engineering, Parkinson’s Law is especially relevant, particularly in project management, development timelines, and resource allocation. When too many developers are assigned to a project, it’s similar to giving overly generous deadlines. Tasks often become over-engineered or stretched out, as more time encourages experimentation and scope creep. On the other hand, tighter deadlines force teams to focus on essentials and adopt “good enough” solutions that meet requirements without unnecessary complexity.

In my experience, perhaps this is the biggest issue with large teams. Software engineers often expand the complexity of solutions when more time and resources are available, even if a simpler, more efficient approach would suffice. This tendency can lead to technical debt and bloated codebases.

Another issue with large teams is the proliferation of meetings and bureaucracy. In larger organizations, teams may inadvertently create unnecessary work—such as excessive meetings, redundant documentation, or over-detailed planning—that doesn’t directly contribute to the project’s progress but consumes significant time and energy. I cannot stress enough how often I’ve seen large teams over-plan something simple.

Small teams avoid many of these pitfalls. They are inherently more focused, agile, and aligned. They foster accountability, as each member plays a critical role in the team’s success. When combined with a culture of excellence, small teams truly can achieve amazing things. As both Steve Jobs and Elon Musk have observed, assembling a small group of A+ players can yield outsized results, far surpassing the output of larger, less cohesive teams.