I believe there are both advantages and disadvantages in having a larger or smaller team. In my opinion, smaller teams tend to have more efficient communication due to the lack of member you need to reach out to. I also feel like its easier to understand the strengths and weaknesses of every member due to team size, making it easier to delegate tasks to those proficient in that area of expertise. Some drawbacks I can associate with smaller teams is overworking. Burnout is more likely to happen due to high workloads. Larger teams are usually more able to take on bigger workloads by splitting work evenly.

I think that the success of working in large or small groups and with people from different backgrounds depends on the particular project, its objectives and the dynamics of the team. Some of the advantages of working in smaller project teams may include improved communication and collaboration between team members, increased sense of accountability, and less time-consuming decision making.Additionally, some disadvantages of working in small project teams may include limited diversity of skills that team members may have, and the workload may be concentrated on a few people. Personally, I prefer working in larger project teams because they have better skills to tackle complex problems and you can find different skill sets and expertise among team members. However, working in larger project groups has some drawbacks, such as the communication and coordination challenges that can arise between team members.

I think that with different backgrounds, we have different perspectives. As a result, it is a lot harder to reach a mutual conclusion. That is normal and to be expected. I do not really see a problem with that though. It might take longer and take more conversations to reach a conclusion, though. 

In my opinion I think it all depends on each individual project and what you are tasked to do. There are times in research where a project involves a long and redundant process that must be done, whether it is formatting code or observing a robot completing a task. These are not projects that I feel would need a group to be completed since it is very automated. However, in the other case there are situations where a project is given and there are no instructions in sight, as it is with most situations. In these cases I feel it is absolutely necessary to bring a diverse group together to discuss and create a solution. It is important to diversify the group because you will have input from all angles. A mechanical engineer would only be an expert in their field similar to how a software engineer would be in theirs. People might not think you need that many voices on a project, but in the long run your solution will be one that thinks for everyone and covers all bases.

Of course, it ultimately comes down to personal preference. Some people thrive in smaller groups and some in larger ones. Just as an interesting tidbit, I remember learning in my psychology class that diad relationships (2 persons) are the most unstable, triads (3 persons) being more stable than diads, but tetrads (4 persons) were less stable than triad groups. The results became more inconsistent as the group size number increased. Nonetheless, it's definitely true that the size of the group will impact the dynamic within it. In my personal experience, I've found that team sizes between 5-12 people are really productive environments and the group is large enough that everyone can find a close friend, but it's not so large that the greater groups begins to form small cliques.  

I think that there are always obstacles with working with people from different backgrounds/professions, which can make it sometimes difficult to communicate concepts or needs. Yet, I would hope that my colleagues similarly want what is best for the product and company to move forward without compromising integrity or quality. 

I prefer to work independently when possible, so when working in teams, I definitely favor a smaller-sized dynamic. Being apart of a smaller team that is comprised of people from various backgrounds is most suitable for me, as it allows for closer collaboration, while also maintaining a wide team skill set. When making a decision about a product, I think that working with someone with a different background may not always be easier, but it is the most effective way to ensure you're creating the best possible product. Having input from someone with a different perspective and experiences is always necessary and valuable. Being able to compromise with this person and find a common ground between differing opinions may be difficult, but it ultimately ensures the utmost success of the product.

Personally in my field, team size depends on the types of projects you're working on. Since I work in the development of In-vitro models the kind of research we do can really only be done by one person at a time. As the models that I develop become more popular in use for the company then to validate those screens we will need more people. Though I don't mind working on bigger projects with more people. The teams we have are small though due to the nature of research. There are other teams dedicated to studying pharmacokinetics and dynamics that when I need to characterize that for my model, it is easiest to ask them to help me out with this work and then our teams will temporarily work together as a result of it. 

Based on my experience working in the field, I prefer to work in small teams. This allows for everyone to get to know each other quickly and easily, while recognizing different strengths and weaknesses. Working in large teams can go one of two ways. Either there will be no team spirit and everyone will complete their tasks independently, or there will be many conflicts just due to the large nature of the group. As for working with people with different backgrounds, this can be helpful and hurtful. It is helpful in that others can learn about different disciplines and become familiar with them. However, if people are not open minded and aware of the expertise other people have in different areas, this can lead to several conflicts and can impede the progress of the project. Also, people from different departments can act prideful or protective of their knowledge and not share it with others. Working on a project team needs patience and preserving, because difficult people are inevitable. 

I find that collaborating in teams of varying sizes presents distinct benefits and challenges. During my time in the military, I noticed that small teams typically offer efficient communication and quicker decision-making, yet might lack a range of expertise, while large teams contribute diverse skills and viewpoints but may encounter difficulties with coordination and agreement. I personally favor smaller teams because of their agility and intimate collaboration, which then enables a concentrated advancement. Nonetheless, I appreciate diversity in any group, as including individuals from various backgrounds enhances the problem-solving experience and promotes creativity. One of my favorite parts about being a leader in the military is working together with different people of all varying backgrounds. Although achieving a consensus in a diverse group can be difficult because of differing perspectives, these conversations frequently result in comprehensive, knowledgeable choices concerning the final goal. I have always had something to gain in terms of knowledge in the diverse groups I have been able to lead.

I believe large teams are more effective however, an effective strategy has to be there for involvement in terms of productivity. Large teams have the advantage in experience and broad views that might lead to a better decision. At the same time, when too many people are involved in every decision can create unnecessary distractions and slow progress. A clear limit on involvement ensures only the necessary voices contribute while keeping the project focused. While smaller teams allow for quicker and more effective communication, a lack in the variety of expertise needed for complex projects. In this case, a company may look elsewhere for expert individuals.

 Hence, Large teams are more effective however, an effective strategy has to be there for involvement in terms of productivity.

Sizes of project teams must directly reflect the amount of responsibility that is needed in the completion of it. I do prefer smaller teams since I feel like actions and decisions are taken with much more agility, and they are less problematic since the people who are making the decision are so few. It also improves communications and leaves little room for errors in communications to occur. Also, I have experienced that smaller teams have an easier time being in contact with cross-functional teams. Smaller teams tend to be more focused on the task at hand, and they are much easier to keep in alignment.