“Teams are the fundamental unit of the organization. If a company wants to outstrip its competitors, it needs to influence not only how people work, but how they work together.” –Charles Duhigg
Several years ago, I was part of a team that had some challenges.
The team was moderately functional at best. Engagement was low. Absences or missed meetings were common, and team conversation was often filled with biting insinuations or awkward silences.
Energy and enthusiasm were rarely present.
But then, things suddenly got better, and rapidly.
When I pondered why things got better, the answer was clear—one person left the team.
This person—let’s call him Bill—was often silent or sullen with an expression of irritation on his face, and arms folded in guarded body posture. When he would chime in, he frequently had a tone of intellectual superiority or condescension toward the team, and even toward our boss.
What made it worse, our boss had a hard time intervening because the comments were often subtle and not over-the-top.
In short, when Bill was around, people simply did not feel safe to speak because they were always on edge, waiting for some sarcastic remark.
When Bill finally broke his silence, he might talk so long that he would dominate the majority of the meeting time.
I’ve now been a manager for 15 years and I’ve had the pleasure and challenge of leading 11 teams. During that time I’ve inherited highly problematic teams, and in other instances been able to build teams from scratch—doing almost all of the hiring myself.
As an organizational psychologist and leader, I’ve obsessed about this question for years—How does someone build a great team?
Let me share two studies that help provide some vital insights into how to build a great team.
Project Aristotle
In 2012, Google conducted a massive multi-year study called Project Aristotle.
They gathered a team of the best statisticians, organizational psychologists, sociologists, and engineers, who analyzed hundreds of teams at Google to look for patterns.
Here is an excerpt from the article summarizing their findings:
Project Aristotle’s researchers began by reviewing a half-century of academic studies looking at how teams worked. Were the best teams made up of people with similar interests? Or did it matter more whether everyone was motivated by the same kinds of rewards? Based on those studies, the researchers scrutinized the composition of groups inside Google: 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 for all of them to be shy? They studied how long teams stuck together and if gender balance seemed to have an impact on a team’s success.”
No matter how researchers arranged the data, though, it was almost impossible to find patterns — or any evidence that the composition of a team made any difference. ‘‘We looked at 180 teams from all over the company,’’ Dubey said. ‘‘We had lots of data, but there was nothing showing that a mix of specific personality types or skills or backgrounds made any difference.
Some groups that were ranked among Google’s most effective teams, for instance, were composed of friends who socialized outside work. Others were made up of people who were basically strangers away from the conference room. Some groups sought strong managers. Others preferred a less hierarchical structure.
One team may come to a consensus that avoiding disagreement is more valuable than debate; another might develop a culture that encouraged vigorous arguments and spurns groupthink.
Most confounding of all, two teams might have nearly identical makeups, with overlapping memberships, but radically different levels of effectiveness. ‘‘At Google, we’re good at finding patterns,’’ Dubey said. ‘‘There weren’t strong patterns here.’’
No unwritten rule or team culture seemed to make a difference in how well the team performed.
It was an agonizing and tedious process that seemed to reveal no helpful guidelines for how to build a truly great team.
The secret sauce
In their frustration and bewilderment, researchers from Project Aristotle turned to a 2008 study done by Carnegie Mellon, M.I.T., and Union College that looked at the collective intelligence of teams.
This study took 699 participants dividing into groups and assigned to complete different tasks that required cooperation.
They observed that groups that did well on one task, seemed to do well on all the other tasks as well.
In summary, they made essential observations.
First, on the best teams, “members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a phenomenon known as equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking. As long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well” (Anita Woolley, Lead Researcher and professor of Organizational Behavior at Carnegie Mellon).
Second, the best teams all had high social sensitivity or a strong ability to assess how others on the team were feeling based on tone of voice, facial expression, and other nonverbal cues. They were skilled as sensing when someone felt upset or left out, and acting to correct it whenever possible. The groups that did not perform as well simply had less sensitivity toward their colleagues.
Both of these traits are aspects that contribute strongly to an environment of psychological safety—a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up, an environment that is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, and a team climate characterized by deep trust and mutual respect where people are comfortable being themselves (as defined by Amy Edmondson, professor at Harvard Business School).
Have you ever left a meeting with your team tense and fearful, ruminating on something your coworker said or worrying about a comment you made that might be misinterpreted? This burns a ton of energy.
Conversely, have you ever been part of a team where people laugh at each other’s jokes or energetically discuss ideas, and then linger long after the meeting talking about their personal lives?
Which team would you rather be part of?
The research also helps to shine light on why my former team improved so much when Bill left.
People just didn’t feel emotionally safe, and the conversations were dominated by one person.
Turn information into action
As a leader, you simply must know how to develop great teams. Otherwise, you will not be successful.
These studies offer fantastic insights for any leader who wants some vital guidelines for creating a great team.
- You can begin by adjusting your interview questions and hiring process, to select for team members high on these two traits. I highly recommend the Notre Dame Behavioral Interviewing questions that emphasize interpersonal skills. Most leaders hire only for intelligence, experience, or skill, but this can lead to severe problems on the team. Take my example, there was no doubt that Bill was smart. That was never a question. The problem was that Bill had difficulty with emotional sensitivity and made people uneasy. If you are a leader and have a Bill on your team, you may need to work with this person toward personal change or a better fit somewhere else.
- Next, you can model conversational turn taking and guide your team to do the same. As the leader, make sure you don’t dominate the conversation in meetings or you will bore your team and they will tune out. They aren’t hanging on your every word. They need someone who is a catalyst, asks good questions, and encourages all team members to speak up and share their perspective.
I once had a mentor that said he would gladly build every team out of people with average job skills and outstanding people skills.
I think he was right.
This way, you end up with teams that get along well, you avoid the soul-sucking work of constant conflict resolution, and generate higher group intelligence that leads to increased team performance and results.
Have a great weekend!
Parker
Further reading
- New York Times Article, What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team
