Final answer:
The statement that small teams usually outperform large ones is true, mainly because of increased cohesiveness and communication within smaller groups. The team halo effect can make teams appear more effective than they are, and majority rule can be ineffective with more than two choices.
Step-by-step explanation:
Research indicates that on average, a small team usually outperforms a large one, which can be considered true. This is likely due to factors such as increased cohesiveness, better communication, and easier monitoring and enforcement within smaller groups. Small groups often have a strong internal cohesiveness and a sense of connection, which can contribute to their effectiveness. However, they might face challenges in achieving large goals when competing against larger groups.
Additionally, the concept of the team halo effect suggests that we may perceive teams as performing better than they actually are. This tends to happen because we attribute the success of our team to being better, but blame losses on reasons beyond the team's control.
When it comes to decision-making processes, majority rule can indeed fail to produce a single preferred outcome when there are more than two choices, making this statement true as well. This is especially relevant in contexts where a plurality rather than a majority determines the outcome, leading to potentially divided preferences.