Why "Breaking the Rules" can sometimes be a good thing!
Sometimes, when rules seem to be placed arbitrarily, it makes sense to break them (especially, if the group don't do anything to offend anyone, or as long as what we do is legal and ethical).
So we've made the decision to break a 'rule' that seems arbitrary, and merge the two groups, (A and B Groups) into one large group. this makes absolute sense, and has been approved by the academic supervisor. This also means that with more joined up resources, there is more flexibility to respond. From experience though, the size of this group, having now changed from 6 plus 6 to 12 overall, is felt as probably about the right size to be a dynamic and responsive team.
Based on the experience of a seasoned professional manager (Graham), his anecdotal evidence suggests that groups start to break apart above about 15 people, into smaller factions or subgroups, which can have a negative affect if not managed through an actively collaborative approach. This anecdotal evidence has been backed up through studies in group dynamics by Oxford Brooks University who say:
"The larger the group, the greater is the pool of talent and experience available for solving problems or sharing the effort. On the other hand as the size increases, fewer members have the chance to participate, and indeed the differences in relative participation increase to the point where one or two members begin to dominate. It thus becomes more likely that reticent members will fail to contribute, though they may well enjoy the relative anonymity a large group affords them.
The smaller the group, the greater is the likelihood of close relationships, full participation, and consonance of aims. Whereas in a small group or team, leadership and other roles are likely to be shared or rotated, the formation of subgroups, and the increasing differentiation of roles in a large group will ensure the emergence of a leader. Where there is an agreed leader (e.g. the teacher) the need to counteract the above tendencies places special demands on his or her awareness of the problems and skills in coping with them. When does a group become "large" and does it still have any merits? Most theorists, researchers and practitioners agree that five to seven members is the optimum for leaderless groups. In the case of led groups, as for academic discussion, the maximum for member satisfaction according to students (NUS 1969) is 10 to 12. Larger groups are an advantage when it requires the combining of individual efforts as in brainstorming. They are of less value when everyone must accomplish the task, which is the general situation in most discussion groups. If the group is small (i.e., two or three in number), the tutor is likely to be dominant from the start. With a large group (eight or more) the divergence of aims and the need for role differentiation may push the tutor into a dominant position. However, the use of subgroups can overcome some of the difficulties of large group discussions." (Oxford Brooks, 2017)
With roles and responsibilities assigned, the leadership and the facilitation of the group needs to be very gentle for the first few weeks of transition. (See Bridges, B. (2003), Managing Transitions). Everyone accepts change at a different pace. One of the more negative aspects of some unsuccessful managers is that they expect everyone in a team to just do as the manager says, without any consideration for the individual. Whilst this may work in some cases, it's much better for teams to be "facilitated" by a guide or coach. By doing so, and giving each individual their own unique space to take responsibility for their own actions, there tends to be a much richer sense of fulfilment by the team as a whole. they tend to be more responsive and dynamic, but also more resourceful in the long run as they help each other and are less dependant on an autocratic direction (another trait of poor leadership). Overall, the group is more likely to become empowered and achieve a sense of satisfaction.
References:
Bridges, W. (1991), Managing Transitions, Nicholas Brealey Publishing; 2 edition (27 Nov. 2003), London.
And, https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/bridges-transition-model.htm
Oxford Brooks University, web resource, retrieved 4th February 2017.
https://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/resources/small-group/sgt103.html