Google is often cited as a shining example for the organization of work in the 21st century. For a long time, Google thought that creating successful teams means putting the best people together. Google wondered if this assumption was correct. In 2012, Google launched the Aristotle project to find out which factors underlie effective and successful teams. It is no surprise that Google used her very rich data environment for this. In a previous blog I described Alex Pentland's Social physics, an approach that uses big data that is collected using sociometric devices. Pentland has visited Google several times to talk about his insights, and Google's research confirms Pentland's insights. In November 2015, project leader Julia Rozovsky from Google published the results and Charles Duhigg wrote an article in February 2016 about the research in the New York Times.
This article has been written in March 2016 and I published it in Dutch. To be able to say something about the core traits of successful teams, I publish it now too in English.
'Who' is not relevant to excel
The research showed that a mix of personality, skills or background does not make a significant difference in team performance. The "who" side apparently doesn't really matter; in a knowledge-intensive organization, it is apparently not crucial to coordinate all kinds of competence or job profiles. The importance of the Belbin team role test is for example also not that great.
2 behaviours matter
The Google researchers discovered that two behaviours matter. The first point concerns equality of contribution to work and team discussions; that every team member has the opportunity to speak out on a daily basis and that there are not certain people who dominate the conversations. This was exactly what Pentland had discovered. To which Pentland adds that interaction frequency also matters; you will not get there with quiet open office space, it has to buzz (Sheridan, 2013).
The second point is about a high degree of social sensitivity; in other words, are team members able to intuitively sense how the other team members feel and they make that negotiable. They are skilled at observing the non-verbal communication of the other and hearing what someone is saying. Both aspects are about psychological safety and group culture and it is by far the most important of the 5 dynamics for excellent teams, see listed below. People are reluctant to show behaviour when it could have a negative influence on how others see them in terms of person, competence and awareness, and you shouldn't have that reluctance right now. Professor Amy Edmondson defines this dynamic as a shared belief among team members that the team is a safe place to take interpersonal risks. (in 2019 Amy published a fantastic book about the fearless organization). It is a feeling of trust and respect that team members do not embarrass, reject or punish a team member when he or she takes the floor. If attention to each other is so important, then according to Google you should not make an artificial distinction between private and work; it is important that there is also room to share things that play privately, the pleasant things and also the emotionally more difficult aspects of life.
In a team with high psychological safety, employees will be less likely to leave, they see more opportunities to harness the power of ideas and suggestions from their teammates, they generate more income and they are twice as effective, according to their managers.
The researchers discovered that it is important how team members work together, communicate with each other, structure their own work and how they see each other's contribution. The following 5 dynamics are characteristic of successful teams at Google:
| Dynamic | |
| 1. Psychological safety | In our team we can take interpersonal risks, without feelings of uncertainty and without being embarrassed |
| 2. Dependency | We can count on each other to deliver high-quality work on time |
| 3. Structure and clarity | Goals, roles and plans are clear |
| 4. Meaning of work | Work is personally important for all team members |
| 5. Impact of work | Team members experience that their work really matters and brings about change. |
What strikes me
is that structure and clarity (goals, roles and plans) is only 1 of the
dynamics and not the most important. At Google, they use a light performance
variant: the OKR (objectives and key results) and in a data-driven
organization, everyone's dashboard of course shows real-live how the projects
are doing, transparent for those who want to see it. It seems that the
structure is a precondition to excel; it is the license-to-work and not the
license-to-excel. Performance support is important but it is not the key to
success and excellence!
Google has
developed a simple tool to give teams feedback how they score on these 5
dynamics. The conversation about the scores was experienced as valuable, as the
tool puts the dynamics in the spotlight. I think project leader Rozovsky
correctly states that you should not underestimate the value of a shared platform
and language.
In short; as leaders
and the organization, ensure the conditions and focus as a team on a safe,
inspiring and dynamic learning and interaction climate within the team. Based
on this solid foundation, team members can effectively interact with the
external environment and make that resonate with the team process.
This requires that
the CEO and the Management team arrange the conditions, to position the teams and
to promote a learning and interaction climate in and between teams wherever it
can. It means smart support for team leaders, coaching of managers and team
leaders and a step-by-step process. And please do not start a whole circus of
workshops and training sessions again; preferably no team coaching, it is the
team leader and team members' turn. And help people after each external
intervention how to apply and implement things in terms of behaviour; that is
not rocket science, but it is often necessary. Focus on the learning abilities,
By paying
attention to each other and to the environment, both with mindfulness, team
members can build a so-called collective meaning structure with each other. And
that is more than the sum of the members and this will pay off twice and for
all! Collective learning can only be built in the 'heat' of the work and
therefore in the context of the team (Weick, 1993), in the appreciation of all
interactions between team members
No comments:
Post a Comment