What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (Duhigg)

Question 1

When Rozovsky began her MBA at Yale, she was assigned to a study group. Why study groups?

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Did shared experiences, such as going to similar colleges and working at analogous companies, help Rozovsky’s study group work together?

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

What were hallmark elements of Rozovsky’s case competition team?

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

What have many of today’s most valuable firms come to realize about “employee performance optimization”?

Answer 4

The practice of “employee performance optimization” (analyzing and improving individual workers) is not enough.

Question 5

What did HBR find about collaborative activities?

Answer 5

• 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

Question 5

Why are software engineers in Silicon Valley encouraged to work together?

Answer 5

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.

Question 5

What has become the fundamental unit of organization, within companies and conglomerates?

Answer 5

Teams!

Question 5

What do companies have to do, if they want to outstrip their competitors?

Answer 5

Influence not only HOW people work, but how they WORK TOGETHER.

Question 5

What has Google’s People Operations department scrutinized, in its focus to build the perfect team?

Answer 5

Everything from how frequently particular people eat together, to which traits best managers share.

Question 6

What did Google’s People Operations department find about the most productive employees’ dining habits?

Answer 6

They tend to build larger networks, by rotating dining companions.

Question 7

What did Google’s People Operations department find about the traits of best managers?

Answer 7

Good communication and avoiding micromanaging is critical.

Question 8

What were false beliefs about building the best teams?

Answer 8

It is not about combining the best people!

Question 9

What was the Project Aristotle initiative?

Answer 9

An initiative to study hundreds of Google’s teams, and figure out why some stumbled, while others soared.

Question 10

What did Project Aristotle’s researchers review?

Answer 10

• 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?

Question 11

How did Project Aristotle’s researchers scrutinize the composition of groups inside Google?

Answer 11

• 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?

Question 12

What types of diagrams did Project Aristotle’s researchers draw?

Answer 12

• Showing which teams had overlapping memberships
• Showing which groups exceeded their departments’ goals

Question 13

What did Dubey and the researchers with Project Aristotle conclude with, when arranging the data?

Answer 13

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.”

Question 14

What was the most confounding, in the conclusions that Project Aristotle researchers had?

Answer 14

Two teams might have nearly identical makeup, with overlapping memberships, but radically different levels of effectiveness.

Question 15

What did Rozovsky and the Project Aristotle research team keep coming across, when figuring out what made a team successful?

Answer 15

A focus on GROUP NORMS.

Question 16

What are group norms?

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

What did Project Aristotle researchers conclude, after looking at over a hundred groups, for more than a year?

Answer 17

Understanding and influencing group norms were the keys to improving Google’s teams.

Question 18

What did Rovosky and Project Aristotle researchers find about the norms of one effective team, vs those of another?

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

What did psychologists from Carnegie Mellon, MIT and Union College seek to answer?

Answer 19

The researchers wanted to know if there is a COLLECTIVE IQ that emerges within a team, distinct from the smarts of any single member.

Question 20

How did psychologists conduct the Collective IQ Research?

Answer 20

Divided recruited people into small groups, and gave each of them a series of assignments requiring different kinds of cooperation

Question 21

What interested the Collective IQ researchers most?

Answer 21

Teams that did well on one assignment usually did well on all the others.

Conversely, teams that failed at one thing seemed to fail at everything.

Question 22

What conclusion did the Collective IQ researchers come to?

Answer 22

What distinguished the “good” teams from the dysfunctional groups was how teammates treated one another.

The right norms could raise a group’s collective intelligence, while the wrong norms could hobble a team, even if individually, all members were exceptionally bright.

Question 23

What confused the Collective IQ researchers?

Answer 23

Not all good teams appeared to behave in the same ways.

Again, the ‘who’ part of the equation didn’t matter.

Question 24

What were the two behaviors that all good teams shared?

Answer 24

1. Equality in Distribution of CONVERSATIONAL TURN-TAKING: Members spoke in roughly the same proportion
2. High AVERAGE SOCIAL SENSITIVITY: Members were skilled at intuiting how others felt, based on the tone of voice, expressions, and other non-verbal cues

Question 25

What is the easiest ways to gauge social sensitivity?

Answer 25

The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test, which shows someone photos of people’s eyes, and ask the person to describe what the people are thinking or feeling.

Question 26

What are conversational turn-taking and high average social sensitivity aspects of?

Answer 26

Psychological Safety.

Question 27

What is psychological safety, according to HBS professor Amy Edmondson?

Answer 27

• A shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.
• A sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up.
• A team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect, in which people are comfortable being themselves.

Question 28

What did research on psychological safety point to, for Project Aristotle?

Answer 28

It pointed to particular norms that are vital to success.

Google’s data indicated that psychological safety, more than anything else, was critical to making a team work.

Question 29

What is the challenge with establishing psychological safety?

Answer 29

It is messy and difficult to implement.

Question 30

What are the building blocks of forging real connections?

Answer 30

• Communication
• Empathy

Question 31

What did Project Aristotle teach people within Google?

Answer 31

No one wants to put on a “work face” when they get to the office, no one wants to leave part of their personality and inner life at home.

Question 32

What do we need to be fully present at work?

Answer 32

Feel “psychologically safe”, to know that we can be free enough to share the things that scare us, without fear of recriminations.

Question 33

Why did Project Aristotle encourage?

Answer 33

By adopting the data-driven approach of Silicon Valley, Project Aristotle encouraged emotional conversations and discussion of norms among people who may otherwise feel uncomfortable talking about how they feel.

“By putting things like empathy and sensitivity into charts and data reports, it makes them easier to talk about.”

“It’s easier to talk about our feelings when we can point to a number.”