A team can have too few people and maybe can also have too many. I think most of the case we discuss the first problem often than the second one
To me adding people does not automatically add the same amount of useful output/outcome. Each new person adds communication, handoffs, coordination, etc. and things that i hate the most spending time aligning with other people instead of doing the work
When there is not enough meaningful work
If the team is larger than the problem they own, some people do not have enough useful work. That can be demotivating, lead to member start looking for a purpose elsewhere because the current team cannot give them good one
This is not about keeping everyone busy. Busywork would make the problem worse. The question is whether each person owns work that matters and can see how it contributes.
A few member team can reveal better ways to work
Sometimes refusing to hire is useful. It forces a team to ask what can be removed, simplified, or automated before adding another person.
That only works when the team has enough capacity to improve its own system. Permanent understaffing creates a different failure. The point is to treat headcount as 1 option of multiple option, not the first and only answer.
Next time before opening another role, ask yourself 2 questions.
- Does the team have more valuable work than it can do?
- Has it already reduced the coordination and repetitive work around that problem?