What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (Duhigg) Flashcards
When Rozovsky began her MBA at Yale, she was assigned to a study group. Why study groups?
Study groups have become a rite of passage at MBA programs, a way for students to practice working in teams, and a reflection of the increasing demand for employees who can adroitly navigate group dynamics.
This is an increased emphasis on team-focused learning.
Did shared experiences, such as going to similar colleges and working at analogous companies, help Rozovsky’s study group work together?
Nope, instead, the study group was a source of stress. Rozovsky felt she always had to prove herself, and the team’s dynamics could put her on edge. There was a fear of making mistakes.
What were hallmark elements of Rozovsky’s case competition team?
- They emailed one another dumb jokes
- They spent the first 10 minutes of meetings chatting
- When it came to brainstorming, they had crazy ideas
- No one worried about being judged
What have many of today’s most valuable firms come to realize about “employee performance optimization”?
The practice of “employee performance optimization” (analyzing and improving individual workers) is not enough.
What did HBR find about collaborative activities?
- Over the past two decades, the time spent by managers and employees in collaborative activities has ballooned by 50% or more
- At many companies, more than 3/4 of an employee’s day is spent communicating with colleagues
Why are software engineers in Silicon Valley encouraged to work together?
Studies show that groups tend to innovate faster, see mistakes more quickly, and find better solutions to problems.
As well, people working in teams tend to achieve better results and report higher job satisfaction.
In a 2015 study, executives say profitability increases when workers are persuaded to collaborate more.
What has become the fundamental unit of organization, within companies and conglomerates?
Teams!
What do companies have to do, if they want to outstrip their competitors?
Influence not only HOW people work, but how they WORK TOGETHER.
What has Google’s People Operations department scrutinized, in its focus to build the perfect team?
Everything from how frequently particular people eat together, to which traits best managers share.
What did Google’s People Operations department find about the most productive employees’ dining habits?
They tend to build larger networks, by rotating dining companions.
What did Google’s People Operations department find about the traits of best managers?
Good communication and avoiding micromanaging is critical.
What were false beliefs about building the best teams?
It is not about combining the best people!
What was the Project Aristotle initiative?
An initiative to study hundreds of Google’s teams, and figure out why some stumbled, while others soared.
What did Project Aristotle’s researchers review?
- A half-century of academic studies looking at how teams worked: The importance of having similar interests? Or being motivated by the same kinds of rewards?
How did Project Aristotle’s researchers scrutinize the composition of groups inside Google?
- How often did teammates socialize outside the office?
- Did they have the same hobbies?
- Were their educational backgrounds similar?
- Was it better for all teammates to be outgoing, or shy?
- How long did teams stick together?
- Did gender balance seem to have an impact on a team’s success?
What types of diagrams did Project Aristotle’s researchers draw?
- Showing which teams had overlapping memberships
- Showing which groups exceeded their departments’ goals
What did Dubey and the researchers with Project Aristotle conclude with, when arranging the data?
It was almost impossible to find patterns, or any evidence that the COMPOSITION of a team made any difference.
“We had lots of data, but there was nothing showing that a mix of specific personality types or skills or backgrounds made any difference. The ‘who’ part of the equation didn’t seem to matter.”
What was the most confounding, in the conclusions that Project Aristotle researchers had?
Two teams might have nearly identical makeup, with overlapping memberships, but radically different levels of effectiveness.
What did Rozovsky and the Project Aristotle research team keep coming across, when figuring out what made a team successful?
A focus on GROUP NORMS.
What are group norms?
The traditions, behavioral standards, and unwritten rules that govern how we function when we gather.
Group norms typically override individual proclivities, and encourage deference to the team.
What did Project Aristotle researchers conclude, after looking at over a hundred groups, for more than a year?
Understanding and influencing group norms were the keys to improving Google’s teams.
What did Rovosky and Project Aristotle researchers find about the norms of one effective team, vs those of another?
They differed from one successful team to the next! The data didn’t offer clear verdict, sometimes pointed in opposite directions. It was hard finding the norms that successful teams shared.
What did psychologists from Carnegie Mellon, MIT and Union College seek to answer?
The researchers wanted to know if there is a COLLECTIVE IQ that emerges within a team, distinct from the smarts of any single member.
How did psychologists conduct the Collective IQ Research?
Divided recruited people into small groups, and gave each of them a series of assignments requiring different kinds of cooperation
