Small Teams, Big Impact: Why Size Matters in Product Building

Bigger is not always better.

In fact, history and data suggest the opposite. Small, focused teams are responsible for some of the most innovative and enduring products in the world.

A 2019 study published in Nature analyzed over 65 million scientific papers, patents, and software projects. The researchers found that small teams tend to create more disruptive and novel work, while large teams are more likely to develop and expand on existing ideas. As the study puts it, "small teams disrupt, large teams develop." The takeaway is clear. If you want to challenge assumptions and build something genuinely new, small teams are statistically more likely to succeed.

Beyond disruption, small teams also benefit from speed and clarity. With fewer handoffs and fewer approval layers, decision-making becomes faster and less complicated. Ownership is clearer because everyone involved knows exactly what they are responsible for and why it matters. Feedback loops tighten naturally, allowing mistakes to be caught earlier and iterations to happen faster. Jason Fried, founder of Basecamp, once pointed out that communication overhead grows exponentially as teams expand: "Five people have ten lines of communication. Fifteen people have 105." Small teams avoid this complexity. They move faster, think sharper, and keep their focus exactly where it needs to be.

At Lever Street Studios, we intentionally keep our structure lean. Our builds prioritize high ownership, short feedback cycles, and a relentless focus on solving real problems. The best early products are not born in conference rooms. They are shaped by small teams that move with urgency, clarity, and trust.

We are not aiming to build the biggest teams. We are focused on building the clearest products. And the evidence is on our side.