For example, a group member’s friend or relative may be able to secure a space to hold a fundraiser at a discounted rate, which helps the group achieve its task. Conversely, groups have more control over their informal networks, which are connections among individuals within the group and among group members and people outside of the group that aren’t official. These external stakeholders may influence the group’s formal network, leaving the group little or no control over its structure. This type of formal network is especially important in groups that have to report to external stakeholders. The group itself may also be a part of an organizational hierarchy that networks the group into a larger organizational structure. In terms of formal networks, groups may have clearly defined roles and responsibilities or a hierarchy that shows how members are connected. Group structure is also formed through formal and informal network connections. For example, a commission that is put together by a legislative body to look into ethical violations in athletic organizations will likely have less control over its external factors than a self-created weekly book club. Some groups will have more control over these external factors through decision making than others. External factors such as group size, task, and resources also affect group structure. Different members will also gravitate toward different roles within the group and will advocate for certain procedures and courses of action over others. For instance, a person who is well informed about the group’s task and/or highly motivated as a group member may emerge as a leader and set into motion internal decision-making processes, such as recruiting new members or assigning group roles, that affect the structure of a group (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). In terms of internal influences, member characteristics play a role in initial group formation. Internal and external influences affect a group’s structure. Small groups that add too many members increase the potential for group members to feel overwhelmed or disconnected.

So, while there is no set upper limit on the number of group members, it makes sense that the number of group members should be limited to those necessary to accomplish the goal or serve the purpose of the group. As you can see, when we double the number of group members, we more than double the number of connections, which shows that network connection points in small groups grow exponentially as membership increases. For example, within a six-person group, there are fifteen separate potential dyadic connections, and a twelve-person group would have sixty-six potential dyadic connections (Hargie, 2011). An analysis of the number of unique connections between members of small groups shows that they are deceptively complex. When groups grow beyond fifteen to twenty members, it becomes difficult to consider them a small group based on the previous definition. A small group requires a minimum of three people (because two people would be a pair or dyad), but the upper range of group size is contingent on the purpose of the group. There is no set number of members for the ideal small group.

Define synergy and identites