Two Pizza Rule: This Is Why Small Teams Win

The two pizza rule is how many people should be working on any particular thing at one time. According to the rule, any collaborative effort should have the amount of members that can be fed with two large pizzas. Beyond that number, things get disorganized, groupthink takes over, attention is diluted, and the team goes from dream to nightmare. The rule comes from the founder and CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos. He is known to use the two pizza rule to lead project teams. It’s also how he ran things when Amazon was in its early stages as a startup.

Bezos’ two pizza rule to encourage productivity is backed by science. Years of research have dictated that communication problems increase exponentially as team size does. In other words, the larger the team, the more time is going to be spent communicating rather than working. Bezos still uses this rule for the meetings he attends. His time is ridiculously valuable, and knows that large meetings are inefficient both for him and whoever else is in the room. It’s a key lesson for anyone in business. Any undertaking should have a team that is as cost-efficient, productive, and enjoyable as possible. That translates to the smallest team that can do the work.

For one thing, large meetings and projects are expensive. Even if they don’t include A-players and c-suite executives like Bezos. Consider the hourly rate of each employee. Let’s go with 50 dollars per hour — or 100,000 dollars annually. Now if there are ten people in that meeting, that’s at least 500 dollars per hour to the organization. Considering that most meetings get nowhere, that’s a needless expense. And the worst part isn’t the tangible monetary cost, but the opportunity cost. What else could those people complete in that time? What if they could get important work done? Make meetings smaller. Win the difference.

So what’s the number? A focused team that can communicate efficiently, maintain individual accountability, and make fast decisions. There is no one value. It depends on the attendants. Roughly speaking however, think 4-6 people. Maximum of 8, but that’s pushing it — would 8 people really be fed by two large pizzas? Smaller teams reduce the complexity of communication. With fewer members, each person’s contribution is more visible. They feel more accountable. Free riders aren’t welcome. Smaller teams can adapt and iterate rapidly, which is essential for the dynamic environments of today.

Real-life examples of the two pizza rule:

• Amazon’s Culture: Jeff Bezos implemented the two pizza rule at Amazon while it was still young. It ensured that project teams were small and nimble. This approach allowed Amazon to remain startup-like and agile well into the future, despite its massive scale. Its one of the many things that made it such a fast innovator.

• Tech Startups: many successful startups take a similar approach by keeping core teams small during the early stages of product development. This makes quick decision-making possible. Crucial for surviving in competitive markets.

• Agile Software Development: agile methodologies advocate for small, cross-functional teams that can deliver progress through regular sprints. Teams limited to roughly 4-8 members can more effectively manage the rapid cycle — plan, develop, review, repeat.

• Creative Agency: a small team of creatives in an advertising agency would be composed of individuals with diverse skills — the designer, copywriter, strategist — who collaborate on campaigns. Their small size ensures every voice is heard. Ideas evolve at super speed. Projects move forward without the bureaucratic delay of large teams. This is why very big advertising agencies tend to flop. Whereas small counterparts that are quick on their feet win.

How you might use the two pizza rule as a mental model: (1) cut the fat — assess the size of your current teams, and if you cannot feed it with two large pizzas, consider breaking it into small, focused units; (2) divide and conquer — for large projects, create sub-teams that work semi-independently, eliminating those unnecessary layers of bureaucracy; (3) make them responsible — implement check-ins and performance reviews so that every team member’s contribution is tracked; (4) let them make potions — foster an environment where your teams can experiment without being bogged down by leadership opinions or lengthy decision cycles; (5) scale up, break down — when you extend your company, form your organization into a web of small, autonomous teams, instead of a single monolithic unit.