Not all teams are created equal.

Google and Julia

Howdy! 📚

Today, let's dive into the 2nd chapter of "Smarter Better Faster" by Charles Duhigg, where we explore the exciting world of teams. We've got a juicy story from Google that will give you some food for thought.

So, Julia Rozovsky had these two teams at Yale: a study group that felt stressful, and a case competition team that felt exciting. They were made up of similar people, but had completely different vibes. It boggled her mind.

Fast forward a few years, and Julia's working at Google in their People Analytics group. This group studies how employees spend their time and works to make life at Google better and more productive. They've got a thing for data and believe that with enough of it, they can solve any behavioral puzzle.

Cue Project Aristotle. Google started this project to figure out why some teams clicked while others didn't. And they found something interesting: group norms - the unwritten rules that guide behavior within a team - played a crucial role in how team members felt about their teams.

What they discovered was that it's all about psychological safety, a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up. Teams that had this "safety net" were more effective.

But, there's a catch! Google needed a way to create psychological safety without losing the capacity for dissent and debate. In other words, how do you make people feel safe, while also encouraging them to be willing to disagree? 🤔

Hospital and mistakes

In 1991, during her time as a first-year PhD student, Edmondson began visiting hospital wards with the intention of demonstrating the connection between good teamwork and effective medical care. Her research led her to the discovery that the strength of a team did not directly correlate with the number of reported errors. Instead, she found that specific norms within the team culture determined how comfortable team members felt in admitting their mistakes.

Through her research, Edmondson introduced the concept of psychological safety, which she defined as a shared belief held by members of a team that the group is a safe place for taking risks. This sense of safety fosters a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect, where people feel comfortable being themselves. Edmondson's work revealed that the best teams exhibited norms that encouraged open communication, discouraged harsh judgments, and promoted psychological safety.

Edmondson's research also emphasized that well-intentioned managers could unintentionally create unhealthy norms. For example, focusing too much on loyalty or professionalism could inadvertently create a culture that makes it difficult for team members to admit mistakes or express their opinions openly. As her work evolved, Edmondson identified norms that not only fostered a sense of unity but also encouraged people to take chances, leading to higher productivity and improved performance.

In conclusion, Amy Edmondson's groundbreaking research on hospital teams and team dynamics has significantly contributed to our understanding of the importance of psychological safety in creating effective and cohesive teams. By fostering psychological safety, organizations can empower team members to voice their opinions, take risks, and collaborate openly, ultimately leading to better outcomes and improved performance across various industries.

Saturday Night Live

On the first day of auditions for the television show that would become Saturday Night Live (SNL), numerous performers showcased their talents, hoping to impress the show's creator, Lorne Michaels. However, instead of selecting cast members from the hundreds who auditioned, Michaels ultimately hired comedians he already knew or who were recommended by friends.

The original cast and writers of SNL came together under Michaels, and over the years, the show became a popular and long-running program. The group was known for their strong sense of unity, spending a significant amount of time together and developing a tight-knit bond. However, this unity was not solely due to forced intimacy or shared history, and it was not without its challenges. There was a considerable amount of competitiveness and infighting within the group, as well as jealousies, rivalries, and battles for affection and airtime.

Despite the tensions and disagreements, the SNL team managed to work effectively and productively. The key to their success was not that they spent so much time together or that the show's norms prioritized group needs above individual egos. Instead, the SNL team thrived because they all felt safe enough around one another to keep pitching new jokes and ideas. The writers and actors worked amid norms that allowed everyone to take risks and be honest with one another, even when they faced criticism or competition.

This environment of psychological safety, where team members felt comfortable expressing themselves and taking risks, was crucial to the success of the original SNL cast.

Picking a team

Picture this: you get invited to join one of two teams. Team A has eight guys and two gals, all super smart and successful. You watch a video of them working together, and they're all taking turns talking, being polite, and listening to each other. When someone goes off-topic, someone else gently brings the convo back on track. The meeting ends right on time.

Team B, though, is a mixed bag – half men, half women, and a mix of execs and middle managers. The video shows them all over the place, interrupting each other and going off on tangents. They don't seem to have any structure, and when the meeting's supposed to end, they all just stick around to gossip.

Which team would you pick?

But wait, there's more. Both teams took this "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test that measures empathy. Team A got the right emotion about 49% of the time, while Team B nailed it with 58%. Does that make you think twice?

Back in 2008, some psychologists from Carnegie Mellon and MIT wanted to see if they could find out which types of teams were really the best. They were curious if there was a sort of "collective intelligence" in a team that was more than just the smarts of each individual member.

So, they got 699 people together, split them into 152 teams, and gave them tasks that needed different kinds of teamwork. They had to brainstorm uses for a brick, plan a shared shopping trip, and decide on a college basketball disciplinary case. It was all about finding the best way to work together as a team.

Team A, despite having smart and successful individuals, lacks evidence of collective intelligence due to a more rigid and individualistic approach to teamwork. On the other hand, Team B, with its more informal and collaborative atmosphere, demonstrates greater potential for collective intelligence. This is because its members engage in more equal conversation and display higher social sensitivity, making the team more attuned to one another's emotions and needs.

While Team B may appear less organized and less focused, its members' ability to work together and support one another leads to a sum that is greater than its parts. Therefore, when faced with the choice between Team A and Team B, opting for Team B would likely lead to a more rewarding and successful experience as part of a collective unit.

Catch ya tomorrow to discuss cognitive tunneling.

Best,

Camillo