What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team, by the New York Times
Masha Yudin stashed this in Teams
A long read on teams. "In 2012, the company embarked on an initiative — code-named Project Aristotle — to study hundreds of Google’s teams and figure out why some stumbled while others soared. Dubey, a leader of the project, gathered some of the company’s best statisticians, organizational psychologists, sociologists and engineers. "
Neat finding: psychological safety is one of the most important attributes of a high performance team. It's not enough to just have superstars.
Source is David Weekly: https://facebook.com/dweekly/posts/10102144815619103
I like this:
Within psychology, researchers sometimes colloquially refer to traits like ‘‘conversational turn-taking’’ and ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ as aspects of what’s known as psychological safety — a group culture that the Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson defines as a ‘‘shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.’’ Psychological safety is ‘‘a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up,’’ Edmondson wrote in a study published in 1999. ‘‘It describes a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.’’
When Rozovsky and her Google colleagues encountered the concept of psychological safety in academic papers, it was as if everything suddenly fell into place. One engineer, for instance, had told researchers that his team leader was ‘‘direct and straightforward, which creates a safe space for you to take risks.’’ That team, researchers estimated, was among Google’s accomplished groups. By contrast, another engineer had told the researchers that his ‘‘team leader has poor emotional control.’’ He added: ‘‘He panics over small issues and keeps trying to grab control. I would hate to be driving with him being in the passenger seat, because he would keep trying to grab the steering wheel and crash the car.’’ That team, researchers presumed, did not perform well.
Most of all, employees had talked about how various teams felt. ‘‘And that made a lot of sense to me, maybe because of my experiences at Yale,’’ Rozovsky said. ‘‘I’d been on some teams that left me feeling totally exhausted and others where I got so much energy from the group.’’ Rozovsky’s study group at Yale was draining because the norms — the fights over leadership, the tendency to critique — put her on guard. Whereas the norms of her case-competition team — enthusiasm for one another’s ideas, joking around and having fun — allowed everyone to feel relaxed and energized.
For Project Aristotle, research on psychological safety pointed to particular norms that are vital to success. There were other behaviors that seemed important as well — like making sure teams had clear goals and creating a culture of dependability. But Google’s data indicated that psychological safety, more than anything else, was critical to making a team work.
Good points from Project Aristotle:
The most productive employees tend to build larger networks by rotating dining companions.
Good communication and avoiding micromanaging is critical; more shocking, this was news to many Google managers.
Group norms are the traditions, behavioral standards, and unwritten rules that govern how we function when we gather. Group norms define a team's culture.
What distinguied the "good" teams from the dysfunctional groups was how teammates treated one another.
Two behaviors that all good teams generally share: First, members spoke in roughly the same proportion, "equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking." Seconds, the good teams all had high "average social sensitivity", they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on the tone of their voice, their expressions , and other nonverbal cues.