And then there were six

In its All Things Digital blog this morning, The Wall Street Journal reports that Google has updated its management page to reflect the numerous recent changes, including Larry Page taking back the title of CEO.  In the process of doing so, Google has cut a list that once contained 70 members to just six.

The Journal's take on the situation focuses on the lack of transparency being provided by Google owing to its slow pace in announcing the numerous changes. In another recent Journal piece, the search company also came in for some criticism for the manner in which it handles its quarterly investor conference calls.  Fair enough.

There is, however, another aspect to this news that has little to do with transparency and a lot to do with leadership and decision making. One could draw from it that Google is telling the world that there are six people in the company whose perspective is taken into account when policy decisions are being made. If that's the case, it should be taken as good news by all Google stakeholders.

We have found that leadership teams generally work best with five to seven members. In larger organizations, that of course means that some areas of expertise may not be directly involved regularly in making significant policy decisions. CEOs , though, need to have a clear notion of who it is they want in the room as they wrestle with major issues.

 Some things for leaders to consider are:

• Making sure they avoid an even number to eliminate the possibility of tie votes;
• A team smaller than five tends to diminish creativity and provide fewer perspectives;
• As a team expands beyond seven, so does the possibility for conflict and the emergence of sub-groups;
• Membership demands a very high level of trust.

It should be pointed out that there is plenty of room in this framework to expand the group at any time to provide perspectives needed for a given topic.  Many also believe that communication technology has made it easier for a CEO to stay in closer touch with a larger team than in the past. Nevertheless, when it comes time to bring the matter to closure -- preferably face to face --  it's best done, and done in a more timely fashion, by the smaller, core team.