Why Are Small Groups More Effective Than Large Groups?

1) Why are small groups more effective than large groups? Include THREE examples from the text.
The author believes that small groups are more effective than large groups because as groups get larger, the participants in the group see that they will have smaller contributions with less benefits from the work, and therefore will not work as hard as they would in a smaller group. For example, a lot of stockholder will not be effective of ousting a manager that is not preforming in their best interest, but a smaller amount will be able to. Part of this is because the more stock holders there are, the less benefit a single holder will get. George Homans uses civilizations as an example, as most big civilizations fall, but tribes and small groups are able to keep on

Homans' theory why small groups are historically more durable than large groups?
George C. Homans' theory on small group durability is that small groups employ different tactics to getting stuff done than larger groups. What he does not consider is that small groups could have totally different circumstances than large groups, so it is impossible to apply some of the small group "features" to larger groups.

3) Why are social incentives effective for individuals of small groups but not large groups?
In smaller groups social incentives work because member of the group know that there contribution has an impact on public good. However, in larger groups, participants know that their work, decisions, and overall contributions will not have the same effect, so the social incentives that work on a smaller group do not work on them.

4) How are federated groups the possible exception to #4?
Federated groups are the exception because these are groups that are divided from one big group. Federated groups are able to get the same effectiveness of small groups because they work as small groups, so they will get the social and economic incentives that help increase productivity of the