How will a perfect team be created?

ByKeith Allison

In project "Project Aristotle" which is done inside Google, we are investigating ways to make a perfect team. It is Julia Rosovski who leads the project as of 2016, revealing what she needs to build a perfect team.

What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team - The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html


◆ Research results that "Collaborative work raises productivity"
In January 2016, in the management journal "Harvard Business Review", "The time for managers and employees to collaborate more than doubles in the past 20 years. In many companies, three quarters of our employees are spending most of the day communicating with colleagues"The research result that was published was published. "Group work improves productivity and reduces mistakes" is introduced at the field level in Silicon Valley, and many IT companies recommend software engineers to collaborate. Other studies have also shown that "working in a team produces better results and leads to higher job satisfaction."

Like large and small companies, teams are the basic unit of organizational structure even at government agencies and school levels. If a company wants a higher outcome than a rival company, it is necessary not only to work at the individual level but also to "see how employees work with colleagues".

ByWoodleywonderworks

◆ Google's initiatives "Project Aristotle"
Over the past ten years, Google has spent millions of dollars to improve employee living, and since five years ago, we have started initiatives to create a perfect team within the organization . In Google's Human Resources department, we are investigating in detail how the best role sharing for managers is from how often they are eating with their colleagues. This seems to be because Google believes that the top team "making the best team means combining the best talent." So what Google adopted was the idea that "introverted people should better summarize" and "the team becomes more competent if they are friends even if the members leave their jobs."

However, it seems that there was not anyone who actually studied whether these ideas really match, and since 2012 Google launched an investigation project of code name "Project Aristotle". This is a project to investigate "Why stumble" and "Why has grown rapidly for what reason" team working at Google. Mr. Avier Derby, who served as a project leader, gathered statistical experts, psychologists, sociologists, engineers, etc. from within Google to investigate. Among them was Julia Rosovski who graduated from Yale University and joined Google.

ByJacinta lluch valero

◆ I do not know "I want to do"
As many people do, Rosovski was 25 when he was not aware of what he wanted to do.

Although he was a consulting company that joined the company in the beginning, he became a researcher at Harvard University. However, in my research work, the work content was interesting but a solitary job, it was a job I could not do for Mr. Rosovski, who wanted to form a community with someone. In search of the possibilities, she worked at an Internet related company and got a Ph.D., but I could not find a suitable work.

◆ Experience gained at Yale University School of Management
In 2009, Rosovski started attending the management school of Yale University. At the school, we will join the research group with a tight schedule organized by the school. This was intended to create human resources capable of manipulating group dynamics by tackling the tasks of the group and was a program like passing ritual to acquire Master of Business Administration (MBA).

Mr. Rosovski tackled the task with the students of the same group during class and during meal time. Members at this time were both smart and curious and had a common point that "I went to a similar university and worked in a similar company", but the team work is smooth Far from it, he seems to have had a jerking relationship. Rotovski says that when members joined their faces, they managed to stand on the leader somehow, and each other's ideas got criticized. At that time, Mr. Rosovski said, "Everyone is raising their voices or more than their opponents I was trying to show authority within the team by speaking and I was speaking carefully not to make mistakes in front of them. "

In the group that Mr. Rosovski belongs to, only people who have experienced various kinds of business gathered and the common points were few, but in the meeting, the atmosphere is peaceful, such as a flight of jokes, He seems to be able to make a very good team that can make suggestions freely. This new group finally gave great results at the competition. Rosovski who did not know the reason why teamwork had so much difference in the two groups that I belonged to at the time, but eventually finds that he wants to conduct "research on human customs and trends" It will be.

BySteven S.

"Project Aristotle" also refers to past research data, etc., "Is the best team made up of people with similar concerns?" Or "What kinds of compensation will lead to motivation Start surveying about? In the survey, "How often teammates are interacting outside the office?" "Do you have the same hobbies?" "Are there similarities in educational backgrounds?" "Is it better for all teammates to be better Is it better for all of them? "And so on, and continued to keep track of which teams achieved outcomes beyond their goals. Furthermore, it seems that he has also investigated the influence of team work hours and sex balance on team success.

However, no matter how much data you put together, I could not clarify what kind of difference the team made, so I did not know how to find the best teammates. Derby says, "We keep track of 180 teams and gained a lot of data, but we did not have a specific personality type, skill, or background creating a difference."

◆ "Group norms" leading the team to success
According to the survey results, one of the teams that was judged to be "the best team" was a team formed by gatherings of "friends" with friends outside the company. On the other hand, there were teams who got good grades among all others. Some teams wanted strong leadership leaders, others did not like the hierarchical team structure. In order to clarify "What led the team to success?", Rosovski and his colleagues focused on "group norms".

The "norm" isA model and role model as a basis of behavior and judgmentThing. Some teams prefer to avoid discrepancies in opinion, others welcome that different opinions come up. The criteria for behavior and judgment shared by members within the team are "collective norms". This "group norm" is very important, so that team members have different stances and tendencies for their work, once the team gathers, the group norm is prioritized over that individual's tendency Thus, respect for the team is born.

When Project Aristotle gathered data on "group norms", "As leaders decided the order of conversations and made members so as not to be isolated, it became easier for everyone to keep order and participate in team work" I celebrated my birthday, I chatted before the meeting and made a schedule for the weekend ". Although the contents of the "group norm" vary depending on the team, it is the conclusion that Project Aristotle issued that understanding the members and establishing appropriate norms is a key to improving the team. Currently, Rosovski, the project's chief, is trying to elucidate "what kind of group norms are important?"

ByAlessandro Prada

Team A is a team composed of smart successors. During the meeting, experts in the members will explain the details so that everyone can understand. Even when someone makes a comment, the speaker advances the meeting so that there is no agenda. This team is very efficient, I do not talk about idle or long debate. Also, the meeting will proceed as scheduled, and all members can return to their desks and resume their work if they are on time.

Team B is a team of executives, middle managers, experts and other class members. Team members repeat work topics and other private topics, team members suddenly change topics, the remaining members continue conversation along new topics. Members also talk about gossip and private conversation, so meetings may sometimes exceed the scheduled time.

If you have two such teams, which team is a better team? In a study conducted by the research team of Carnegie Mellon University and psychologists at MIT in 2008, when I gave a score on the tasks given on a team basis, the highest score was " It was said at the time of sacrificing the idea that he wanted. " At this time, the group that succeeded one task successfully accomplished all the other tasks well, but the team that stumbled on one issue tended to stumble over others. From this result, the research team concluded that the distinction between "good team" and "bad team" is how team members deal with each other. In other words, it turned out that group norms lead to improving the collective intelligence of the group. However, the norms of successful teams were various, ranging from a team where leaders exercise strong leadership to a team where members equally play their respective roles.

ByAtos

However, among the various teams, the two common things seen in the successful team were revealed. One of the common points is "Members are talking almost equallyIn that point. This leads to a change in people who take leadership depending on the task, preventing collective intelligence from leaning towards anyone's direction. Another thing in common is "He had high "average social sensitivity"That thing. This is the ability to see how the other person feels from voice tone and gesture gesture, it seems that these helped create an environment that can be psychologically safe and led to the listening to others' story.

From these results, Google researchers conclude that participation in Team B is a good idea if there is opportunity to participate in either Team A or Team B. Team A has been able to optimize the efficiency of individual work, but the group norm prohibits useless conversation, there are few opportunities to speak freely and there is opportunity to share information of individuals It has disadvantages of not having. On the other hand, Team B can speak freely, so it seems possible to pour the powers of each member into the purpose of the team.

In addition, the "five keys" common to teams that have achieved results within Google are summarized in the following articles.

What are the five keys on the successful Google team? - GIGAZINE