Skip to main content
HBT-COG-0682 · Dimension COG · Cognition

Two-Pizza Teams

Teams small enough to be fed by two pizzas.

Systems·Mental Model·Grade B·draft· enriching…
In one paragraph

Two-Pizza Teams is teams small enough to be fed by two pizzas. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0682, within the Systems family. The core principle: teams small enough to be fed by two pizzas. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.

Scientific Definition

Teams small enough to be fed by two pizzas.

Plain-English Definition

Teams small enough to be fed by two pizzas.

Feynman Explanation

If you can't feed it, you can't run it.

Core Principle

Teams small enough to be fed by two pizzas.

Mechanisms

Psychological

Pending editorial review.

Behavioral Economic

Teams small enough to be fed by two pizzas.

Neurological

Pending editorial review.

Evolutionary

Pending editorial review.

Sociological

Pending editorial review.

Computational

Pending editorial review.

Systems

Operating cadence and team design.

Inputs (Triggers)

Pending editorial review.

Outputs (Behaviors)

Pending editorial review.

Behavioral Signature

If you can't feed it, you can't run it.

Examples

Everyday
  • Amazon's org design principle.
Modern (Organizational)
  • Operating cadence and team design.
Historical

Pending editorial review.

Lab Commentary

Original analysis from The Incentives Lab — how this element behaves inside real payoff structures.

Why this element matters to incentive design

This element is common enough to feel like human nature and specific enough to be engineered around. The mechanism underneath it is straightforward: teams small enough to be fed by two pizzas. You can recognize it in the field by its signature: if you can't feed it, you can't run it. Every element in the Cognition dimension changes the perceived payoff of an action before the action happens, which is exactly where incentive design has leverage.

How it gets exploited

Left undesigned, operating cadence and team design. It is amplified whenever operating cadence and team design. Inside organizations that shows up as operating cadence and team design. The pattern is the same one Goodhart's Law describes: the measurable proxy attracts the effort, and the purpose behind it quietly loses funding.

How the Lab designs around it

The redesign move is to audit team sizes quarterly. Split when they balloon. Treat it as infrastructure. Once you can see it in your own system, most of the argument about culture resolves itself.

Famous Experiments

Pending editorial review.

Design Principles

  • Audit team sizes quarterly. Split when they balloon.

Measurement Approaches

Pending editorial review.

Evidence

Evidence Grade
B (A strongest → E speculative)
Replication
★★★☆☆
Intervention Confidence
3 / 5
Consensus
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).
Limitations
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).
Open Research Questions

Pending editorial review.

Primary References

Pending editorial review.

Signature Section

The Perverse Incentive Lens™

How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.

Exploitation
Operating cadence and team design.
Amplifying Incentives
Operating cadence and team design.
Org Failure Modes
Operating cadence and team design.
Societal Failure Modes
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).
Ethical Considerations
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).
Redesign Strategies
Audit team sizes quarterly. Split when they balloon.
Diagnostic Questions
  • Audit team sizes quarterly. Split when they balloon.
Warning Signs

Pending editorial review.

Red Flags

Pending editorial review.

Intervention Playbook
Individual
Audit team sizes quarterly. Split when they balloon.
Team
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).
Organization
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).
Policy
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).
AI Implications
Detection
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).
Measurement
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).
Mitigation
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).
Responsible Use
Pending editorial review (HBT v1.0 auto-seed).

Interactive Mini Network

Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.

HBT-COG-0682 · COG
Two-Pizza Teams
TTAlAlloyingBoBottleneckBoBottlenecksBWBroken Windows TheoryBLBrook's LawBLBrooks's LawCaCatalystCTChaos TheoryCRChemical ReactionsCLConway's Law

Knowledge Graph Neighbors

Where Two-Pizza Teams is cited in the corpus

Questions about Two-Pizza Teams

What is Two-Pizza Teams?
Two-Pizza Teams is teams small enough to be fed by two pizzas. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0682, within the Systems family. The core principle: teams small enough to be fed by two pizzas. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
What is an example of Two-Pizza Teams?
Operating cadence and team design. The Incentives Lab catalogs everyday, organizational, and historical instances of this element on its Human Behavior Taxonomy™ page (HBT-COG-0682).
How is Two-Pizza Teams exploited?
Operating cadence and team design.
How do you design around Two-Pizza Teams?
Audit team sizes quarterly. Split when they balloon.
Which behavioral dimension does Two-Pizza Teams belong to?
Two-Pizza Teams is classified in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™, family "Systems", class "Mental Model". Its permanent identifier is HBT-COG-0682 and its evidence grade is B.

Version History

v1.1.0 · 2026-06-28Initial auto-seed from corpus.