This is a great tool to have for anyone on a team. I feel quite fortunate to be on a small team that, at first glance, does quite well in each of these five areas.
That being said it would be nice if Google shared more information about the gTeams exercise they do.
> I liked how they put the entirety of the infographic text in the alt text - really shows that they care about accessibility!
The alt text for the image is just "5 Keys to Google Teams"; if you open the image in a text-based browser (e.g., links), that is what you'll see.
What they've set, the "title" attribute, is used for tooltips in graphical browsers; the replacement text comes not from title, but from alt. (And alt and title can be different.)
From an accessibility standpoint, I'm not sure it really matters. The infographic's text is also above, in the bullet point, just in question form. (I actually question if the "info"graphic really adds anything. These seem like five independent things, not that 2 depends really on 1, which if the infographic implies anything, it would be that. 3 (goals are clear) certainly doesn't depend on 2 (get things done)…; if anything, having clear goals will lead to getting things done, but not the other way around.)
In glad to see that top of the list is "psychological safety". It's a great term for something I have always found desperately important. Being secure enough to say "I don't know", is vital. I have promised myself "never lie", simply as that gives me the best psychological safety - it's horrific having lied about something (yeah that's ready, yes I know about X) and just waiting for the axe to fall.
A great term for a vital concept. How to create that? Dunno.
"So we created a tool called the gTeams exercise: a 10-minute pulse-check on the five dynamics, a report that summarizes how the team is doing, a live in-person conversation to discuss the results, and tailored developmental resources to help teams improve."
And they had some metrics for a specific improvement:
"... ones that adopted a new group norm -- like kicking off every team meeting by sharing a risk taken in the previous week -- improved 6% on psychological safety ratings and 10% on structure and clarity ratings.
And generally:
"Teams said that having a framework around team effectiveness and a forcing function to talk about these dynamics was missing previously and by far the most impactful part of the experience."
So it sounds like simply discussing the importance of these aspects and how they influence your team from within the team itself might help foster a better environment.
I'm going to invent something we are going to call "personal happiness." Right now.
I'm not going to define it in any way at all. We are all just going to assume that this is a good thing that we all want. I'm not going to tell you how to measure it or how to quantify it or anything like that. This is simply an objective thing that we all want.
Now I am going to tell you that there are 5 key components to personal happiness. And I am not going to tell you how to measure those either. Because who would do that?
But I am going to tell you that if you do x, you can score higher on one of those components.
I am not going to tell you if these numbers are statistically meaningful because I can't be arsed to actually talk about my methodology.
If you engage in one of these behaviors, you will increase your score on one of these metrics, and ultimately increase your personal happiness.
Does that help clear up my problem with the original blog post?
In my opinion, it's worthless at best and possibly damaging at worst.
We have an undefined goal, supporting goals that are also undefined, and we get sub-metrics that are measured without specific sample sizes or anything else that would let you know that there is actually something interesting happening.
This is complete and total bs until we get more details. And we won't.
It's probably not worth posting here, but worth mentioning that this really boils down to a psychological experiment tested on employees without their consent.
I hope that works out for those of you who think that HR is a valuable entity for preventing legal actions.
I think the idea of a retrospective is the most potent and valuable item coming from scrum these days (we'll certainly from "we do a modified form of scrum here")
How? A necessary element would be to have a forgiving attitude toward those who don't tell the truth, let them save face when they get caught or fess up.. and ask them to shape up ... or get out (or remove them, if you can).
An environment with a minimum amount of cynicism and resignation along with a healthy does of forgiveness toward each other goes a long way toward creating "psychological safety".
And you guessed it -it starts with you. Don't wait on others to be like this... You be like that and watch it rub off on everyone.
This article should have been one sentence regarding "psychological safety" and then several paragraphs suggesting ways to achieve this. And more importantly how to build it into the corporate culture.
For example, a high-level manager a large tech company is trying to do this by starting maker-spaces within the company where employees collaborate on projects not related to the core business. But now that they are built, employees fear that if they are seen having fun at work, even after hours, it might make them a target if layoffs occur again.
So: two years, hundreds of interviews, lots of data analysis, god knows how many person-hours invested . . . to figure out what any competent human being would think of as blindingly obvious.
And some people wonder why so many other people think of HR as a complete waste of, well, human resources.
Lest I be mistaken for a troll, please let me elaborate.
I'm almost(?) certain that opening bit was tongue-in-cheek about just tossing a Rhodes Scholar, a couple extroverts, an engineer and a PhD into a team and expecting it to be a great team. But there is an uncomfortable truth hidden behind the exaggeration there. HR people can and do make those kinds of assumptions all the time. They do it when they are looking at resumes; they do it when they are setting up phone screens; they do it when they are setting up PIPs.
There's a deeply seated problem happening when you allow people with no subject matter experience be the gatekeepers of who does and doesn't get into a company. Externally, it manifests as bias or prejudice or racism. No amount of data analysis can get people to shunt a fundamentally flawed assumption though.
In my opinion, there's only one kind of person who could invent such a daft null hypothesis about what makes a good team: someone who's never worked on a team like that. I'm glad that the People Ops people at Google are making some progress. Perhaps other companies will follow suit, but the problem persists. There will still be the same people in HR making the same boneheaded assumptions about all kinds of things with little direct feedback.
I realize that any sizable company needs HR for at least some minimal amount of due diligence in the hiring process, and that HR employees are generally less expensive than Legal Counsel dept. employees. But we should stop giving HR the insane carte blanche it has in many large companies. We should stop letting it create policy. Because the policies created are so often antithetical to the needs of the company, and in some cases, to society.
Instead, we should embed HR workers in the teams they are working with. Perhaps every pod at Google doesn't need its own HR rep, but there is a level of management that would make sense to have one HR person to handle hiring/recruiting/necessary paperwork. You can argue that the HR person attached to a unit will be biased and perhaps not handle things appropriately when a complaint comes up. But you're wrong because in any situation where a complaint happens, HR is just a proxy for Legal. Cut out the middle-people and just have the Legal team handle it directly. HR doesn't really add anything to those situations except a level of misdirection(some people think HR is there for them, not the company).
As a general trend, these 5 markers of success are probably pretty good. But I challenge you to find something in any of that which is concrete enough to be actionable. I guarantee you the HR people will find some action, and it will be for some manager to do some evaluation on how well some team performs on those metrics.
To go full circle here, the final issue I have with a blog like this is that it makes the mistake of finding that what they thought was the general case was "not true." The goal for a team is not to achieve some success in hazy, ill-defined (and probably some variation of survivor-biased) ideas about how to manage a team.
Some teams will absolutely thrive with the goofy composition that was first stated. Others will fail. If you define success or failure as shipping a viable product. If you define success as how well you implemented the latest directives from HR, well, that's different.
We need to rethink the way we handle HR and what it does. It should not, for example (as done in this blog post) tell managers how to manage their teams. Nor should it tell teams what their identity is or should be.
You say, "But I challenge you to find something in any of that which is concrete enough to be actionable."
So, you might have missed this part: Of those Google teams, the ones that adopted a new group norm -- like kicking off every team meeting by sharing a risk taken in the previous week -- improved 6% on psychological safety ratings and 10% on structure and clarity ratings. Teams said that having a framework around team effectiveness and a forcing function to talk about these dynamics was missing previously and by far the most impactful part of the experience."
So ... simply taking 5 minutes to talk about the risks taken in the previous week can help develop the environment. Of course it needs to be a positive discussion. Start it with the premise of: "how did we stretch our bounds last week even if it didn't work out?" rather than "what did we screw up this past week?"
This comment is rife with fundamental misunderstanding of the main purpose that HR serves in a company. That purpose is to protect the company from legal action by employees, former and present. This is the overriding principle on which HR operates, everything else it does is gravy.
My point is that I think there's a way for Legal to do its job of protecting the company and also have HR do something beneficial.
Edit to ask: Why would you put people in charge of a task they are guaranteed to not be qualified for? HR people are not attorneys. Why would you ask them to protect you from legal action? It makes no sense. Attorneys should protect the company from legal action. HR should do what HR claims to do.
I think that attitude is deeply cynical. I know HR is not allied to employees: but to say that is the main purpose is a bit over the top.
The cynical view sets a very low bar, it's like a comment on FinancialNews(tm) saying the main role of Software Engineering is to rush out code that doesn't crash. There are organizations where the statement is true, but you and I know there's more to it than that. Yes, the we don't ship code that crashes, but we can, and do a whole lot more
That reeks of emporor's-new-clothes-ism. The statement both redefines a word and disparages those who disagree at once - two birds with one stone, I guess.
(Tedious disclaimer: not speaking for anybody else, my opinion only, etc. I'm an SRE at Google.)
I'm only going to respond to a couple of parts of this. I more or less disagree with everything you said and even some of the whitespace, but there are only some parts that I can discuss publicly so I'll limit myself to those.
> to figure out what any competent human being would think of as blindingly obvious.
No: to take the things which you thought were obvious, and collect data proving which ones were true and which ones were false. This is no longer "obvious", it is now a proven fact.
Yes, science is a lot more expensive than guessing.
> HR people can and do make those kinds of assumptions all the time. They do it when they are looking at resumes; they do it when they are setting up phone screens
> There's a deeply seated problem happening when you allow people with no subject matter experience be the gatekeepers of who does and doesn't get into a company.
I can state unequivocally that peopleops at Google is not involved in these functions, except to monitor their performance.
> Perhaps every pod at Google doesn't need its own HR rep, but there is a level of management that would make sense to have one HR person to handle hiring/recruiting/necessary paperwork.
We do assign people in something roughly like this fashion, although they aren't really involved in hiring, recruiting, or paperwork.
While reading it, I was constantly thinking how far this can be applied to an organization as well (Ex. a Startup).
Quite a lot I would imagine, would love to have a startup (my own or otherwise) which has following culture. Paraphrasing the original text..
Psychological safety: Does it have open culture where people are humble, unpretentious and open to other people’s ideas and thoughts.
Dependability: Does it have A team which is smart and reliable (delivers on time and can be counted upon to gather around in crisis and firefights).
Structure & clarity: Are goals, roles, and execution plans of our startup clear?
Meaning of work: Are we working on something that is personally important for each of us?
Impact of work: Do we fundamentally believe that the work we’re doing matters? Or, is there enough upside for a great exit, which frees us to do whatever we wish to do later in our life.
You sum up everything that is required in a modern organization. I believe all modern organizations will be smaller units thriving on similar units, not required to be owned by them.
Does anyone have links to the original study(ies?) rather than just this summary? Some of these claims seem pretty hard to swallow. For example:
> Who is on a team matters less than how the team members interact, structure their work, and view their contributions.
This result appears to be strongly at odds with Google's thorough interviewing. Perhaps they are saying that the data doesn't show a difference based on individual history given the employee was good enough to be hired at Google, and assigned to the team in question by some other HR team?
Any references would be appreciated. I tried searching Google Scholar for the author, but am finding nothing :/
That's a good point. Almost anybody who makes it through Google's hiring process for technical employees should be capable of handling most routine problems in computing. Given that, the team dynamics matter more than the technical ability.
Speaking as a former member of more than one low-performing team at Google, none of the exercises would have helped our performance very much. What would have helped:
1. Being co-located. We would have been more effective sitting and working together, but instead we were distributed across multiple time zones and countries.
2. Working on a project with a future, instead of one that was winding down. It's difficult to "harness the power of diverse ideas" or be "rated as effective" when our team's charter is maintaining a project to its EOL date, with no plans for a successor.
3. Avoiding morale-sapping demotions in responsibility. One of my teams had its responsibilities changed from supporting the system we built and deployed, to assisting one of Google's "partners" deploy an inferior replacement. More than one member left when that happened.
4. Reducing the technology churn. When our leadership changes the product every six months, which forces us to switch to a different technology, we're stuck coming up to speed instead of contributing out of our expertise.
5. Reducing the team member churn. Constantly leaving and replacing team members is both a symptom and a cause of low performance. Here Google's internal mobility works against it.
(These events were due to leadership shifts at the VP level, and had nothing to do with our team's output, which I think was better than it ought to be given our circumstances.)
The point is that a team's performance has more to do with the larger organization than the team's internals. Frankly this article feels like blame-shifting: if we teach them some exercises to do at meetings, maybe they won't notice all these institutional issues.
The article strikes me as phony and light on substance. The author talks about five traits that everyone will agree are important and states that they are working on improving it. So far so good.
But take dependability for example. Improving it might take some boring things like improving employees' competence (ok, maybe not so relevant for google). Or some unpleasant things like holding people accountable. It is in odds with psychological safety (if risky behavior is encouraged the number of errors will inevitably increase and thus dependability will decrease). How is this tension resolved? The article says nothing.
Or take meaning and impact. Improving it might require working on a really important project and not some low-grade maintenance which big companies are full of. How is 10-minute pre-meeting talk going to help?
"improved 6% on psychological safety ratings" - seriously? What does it mean to feel 6% more safe? Please at least share how this rating is calculated and ideally also its impact on less ethereal metrics.
The give away is the use of "high performing team" which makes me sad that they've essentially identified Tuckman's stages of group development without referencing it (because I really hope they've heard of it).
Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing (and the addition of Mourning) aren't particularly hard concepts to grasp yet all too often in the technology space get ignored. Many of the examples mentioned here of not sorting out how people are going to work together, throwing new tech or people into the team, all impact this concept and push you back down the ladder.
In 6+ years of professional development I've only ever been in one truly high performing team, plenty of people never have. That leadership and management, and they are two distinct things, is so bad about enabling their creation is something that doesn't get nearly enough attention.
34 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 52.3 ms ] threadThat being said it would be nice if Google shared more information about the gTeams exercise they do.
I would have definitely liked their thoughts on (2)-(5), and perhaps release some anonymized case studies from their 200 data points.
The alt text for the image is just "5 Keys to Google Teams"; if you open the image in a text-based browser (e.g., links), that is what you'll see.
What they've set, the "title" attribute, is used for tooltips in graphical browsers; the replacement text comes not from title, but from alt. (And alt and title can be different.)
From an accessibility standpoint, I'm not sure it really matters. The infographic's text is also above, in the bullet point, just in question form. (I actually question if the "info"graphic really adds anything. These seem like five independent things, not that 2 depends really on 1, which if the infographic implies anything, it would be that. 3 (goals are clear) certainly doesn't depend on 2 (get things done)…; if anything, having clear goals will lead to getting things done, but not the other way around.)
A great term for a vital concept. How to create that? Dunno.
"So we created a tool called the gTeams exercise: a 10-minute pulse-check on the five dynamics, a report that summarizes how the team is doing, a live in-person conversation to discuss the results, and tailored developmental resources to help teams improve."
And they had some metrics for a specific improvement:
"... ones that adopted a new group norm -- like kicking off every team meeting by sharing a risk taken in the previous week -- improved 6% on psychological safety ratings and 10% on structure and clarity ratings.
And generally:
"Teams said that having a framework around team effectiveness and a forcing function to talk about these dynamics was missing previously and by far the most impactful part of the experience."
So it sounds like simply discussing the importance of these aspects and how they influence your team from within the team itself might help foster a better environment.
Let me try to explain a different way.
I'm going to invent something we are going to call "personal happiness." Right now.
I'm not going to define it in any way at all. We are all just going to assume that this is a good thing that we all want. I'm not going to tell you how to measure it or how to quantify it or anything like that. This is simply an objective thing that we all want.
Now I am going to tell you that there are 5 key components to personal happiness. And I am not going to tell you how to measure those either. Because who would do that?
But I am going to tell you that if you do x, you can score higher on one of those components.
I am not going to tell you if these numbers are statistically meaningful because I can't be arsed to actually talk about my methodology.
If you engage in one of these behaviors, you will increase your score on one of these metrics, and ultimately increase your personal happiness.
Does that help clear up my problem with the original blog post?
In my opinion, it's worthless at best and possibly damaging at worst.
We have an undefined goal, supporting goals that are also undefined, and we get sub-metrics that are measured without specific sample sizes or anything else that would let you know that there is actually something interesting happening.
This is complete and total bs until we get more details. And we won't.
It's probably not worth posting here, but worth mentioning that this really boils down to a psychological experiment tested on employees without their consent.
I hope that works out for those of you who think that HR is a valuable entity for preventing legal actions.
An environment with a minimum amount of cynicism and resignation along with a healthy does of forgiveness toward each other goes a long way toward creating "psychological safety".
And you guessed it -it starts with you. Don't wait on others to be like this... You be like that and watch it rub off on everyone.
For example, a high-level manager a large tech company is trying to do this by starting maker-spaces within the company where employees collaborate on projects not related to the core business. But now that they are built, employees fear that if they are seen having fun at work, even after hours, it might make them a target if layoffs occur again.
And some people wonder why so many other people think of HR as a complete waste of, well, human resources.
Lest I be mistaken for a troll, please let me elaborate.
I'm almost(?) certain that opening bit was tongue-in-cheek about just tossing a Rhodes Scholar, a couple extroverts, an engineer and a PhD into a team and expecting it to be a great team. But there is an uncomfortable truth hidden behind the exaggeration there. HR people can and do make those kinds of assumptions all the time. They do it when they are looking at resumes; they do it when they are setting up phone screens; they do it when they are setting up PIPs.
There's a deeply seated problem happening when you allow people with no subject matter experience be the gatekeepers of who does and doesn't get into a company. Externally, it manifests as bias or prejudice or racism. No amount of data analysis can get people to shunt a fundamentally flawed assumption though.
In my opinion, there's only one kind of person who could invent such a daft null hypothesis about what makes a good team: someone who's never worked on a team like that. I'm glad that the People Ops people at Google are making some progress. Perhaps other companies will follow suit, but the problem persists. There will still be the same people in HR making the same boneheaded assumptions about all kinds of things with little direct feedback.
I realize that any sizable company needs HR for at least some minimal amount of due diligence in the hiring process, and that HR employees are generally less expensive than Legal Counsel dept. employees. But we should stop giving HR the insane carte blanche it has in many large companies. We should stop letting it create policy. Because the policies created are so often antithetical to the needs of the company, and in some cases, to society.
Instead, we should embed HR workers in the teams they are working with. Perhaps every pod at Google doesn't need its own HR rep, but there is a level of management that would make sense to have one HR person to handle hiring/recruiting/necessary paperwork. You can argue that the HR person attached to a unit will be biased and perhaps not handle things appropriately when a complaint comes up. But you're wrong because in any situation where a complaint happens, HR is just a proxy for Legal. Cut out the middle-people and just have the Legal team handle it directly. HR doesn't really add anything to those situations except a level of misdirection(some people think HR is there for them, not the company).
As a general trend, these 5 markers of success are probably pretty good. But I challenge you to find something in any of that which is concrete enough to be actionable. I guarantee you the HR people will find some action, and it will be for some manager to do some evaluation on how well some team performs on those metrics.
To go full circle here, the final issue I have with a blog like this is that it makes the mistake of finding that what they thought was the general case was "not true." The goal for a team is not to achieve some success in hazy, ill-defined (and probably some variation of survivor-biased) ideas about how to manage a team.
Some teams will absolutely thrive with the goofy composition that was first stated. Others will fail. If you define success or failure as shipping a viable product. If you define success as how well you implemented the latest directives from HR, well, that's different.
We need to rethink the way we handle HR and what it does. It should not, for example (as done in this blog post) tell managers how to manage their teams. Nor should it tell teams what their identity is or should be.
So, you might have missed this part: Of those Google teams, the ones that adopted a new group norm -- like kicking off every team meeting by sharing a risk taken in the previous week -- improved 6% on psychological safety ratings and 10% on structure and clarity ratings. Teams said that having a framework around team effectiveness and a forcing function to talk about these dynamics was missing previously and by far the most impactful part of the experience."
So ... simply taking 5 minutes to talk about the risks taken in the previous week can help develop the environment. Of course it needs to be a positive discussion. Start it with the premise of: "how did we stretch our bounds last week even if it didn't work out?" rather than "what did we screw up this past week?"
And further, improving on those metrics does exactly what for the team? For the company? For the individuals?
What we know so far is that improving on that score does nothing but improve on that score.
My point is that I think there's a way for Legal to do its job of protecting the company and also have HR do something beneficial.
Edit to ask: Why would you put people in charge of a task they are guaranteed to not be qualified for? HR people are not attorneys. Why would you ask them to protect you from legal action? It makes no sense. Attorneys should protect the company from legal action. HR should do what HR claims to do.
The cynical view sets a very low bar, it's like a comment on FinancialNews(tm) saying the main role of Software Engineering is to rush out code that doesn't crash. There are organizations where the statement is true, but you and I know there's more to it than that. Yes, the we don't ship code that crashes, but we can, and do a whole lot more
George Bernard Shaw
I'm only going to respond to a couple of parts of this. I more or less disagree with everything you said and even some of the whitespace, but there are only some parts that I can discuss publicly so I'll limit myself to those.
> to figure out what any competent human being would think of as blindingly obvious.
No: to take the things which you thought were obvious, and collect data proving which ones were true and which ones were false. This is no longer "obvious", it is now a proven fact.
Yes, science is a lot more expensive than guessing.
> HR people can and do make those kinds of assumptions all the time. They do it when they are looking at resumes; they do it when they are setting up phone screens
> There's a deeply seated problem happening when you allow people with no subject matter experience be the gatekeepers of who does and doesn't get into a company.
I can state unequivocally that peopleops at Google is not involved in these functions, except to monitor their performance.
> Perhaps every pod at Google doesn't need its own HR rep, but there is a level of management that would make sense to have one HR person to handle hiring/recruiting/necessary paperwork.
We do assign people in something roughly like this fashion, although they aren't really involved in hiring, recruiting, or paperwork.
Psychological safety: Does it have open culture where people are humble, unpretentious and open to other people’s ideas and thoughts.
Dependability: Does it have A team which is smart and reliable (delivers on time and can be counted upon to gather around in crisis and firefights).
Structure & clarity: Are goals, roles, and execution plans of our startup clear?
Meaning of work: Are we working on something that is personally important for each of us?
Impact of work: Do we fundamentally believe that the work we’re doing matters? Or, is there enough upside for a great exit, which frees us to do whatever we wish to do later in our life.
For example these external postmortems from the chromium team - https://www.chromium.org/developers/postmortems
> Who is on a team matters less than how the team members interact, structure their work, and view their contributions.
This result appears to be strongly at odds with Google's thorough interviewing. Perhaps they are saying that the data doesn't show a difference based on individual history given the employee was good enough to be hired at Google, and assigned to the team in question by some other HR team?
Any references would be appreciated. I tried searching Google Scholar for the author, but am finding nothing :/
1. Being co-located. We would have been more effective sitting and working together, but instead we were distributed across multiple time zones and countries.
2. Working on a project with a future, instead of one that was winding down. It's difficult to "harness the power of diverse ideas" or be "rated as effective" when our team's charter is maintaining a project to its EOL date, with no plans for a successor.
3. Avoiding morale-sapping demotions in responsibility. One of my teams had its responsibilities changed from supporting the system we built and deployed, to assisting one of Google's "partners" deploy an inferior replacement. More than one member left when that happened.
4. Reducing the technology churn. When our leadership changes the product every six months, which forces us to switch to a different technology, we're stuck coming up to speed instead of contributing out of our expertise.
5. Reducing the team member churn. Constantly leaving and replacing team members is both a symptom and a cause of low performance. Here Google's internal mobility works against it.
(These events were due to leadership shifts at the VP level, and had nothing to do with our team's output, which I think was better than it ought to be given our circumstances.)
The point is that a team's performance has more to do with the larger organization than the team's internals. Frankly this article feels like blame-shifting: if we teach them some exercises to do at meetings, maybe they won't notice all these institutional issues.
But take dependability for example. Improving it might take some boring things like improving employees' competence (ok, maybe not so relevant for google). Or some unpleasant things like holding people accountable. It is in odds with psychological safety (if risky behavior is encouraged the number of errors will inevitably increase and thus dependability will decrease). How is this tension resolved? The article says nothing.
Or take meaning and impact. Improving it might require working on a really important project and not some low-grade maintenance which big companies are full of. How is 10-minute pre-meeting talk going to help?
"improved 6% on psychological safety ratings" - seriously? What does it mean to feel 6% more safe? Please at least share how this rating is calculated and ideally also its impact on less ethereal metrics.
Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing (and the addition of Mourning) aren't particularly hard concepts to grasp yet all too often in the technology space get ignored. Many of the examples mentioned here of not sorting out how people are going to work together, throwing new tech or people into the team, all impact this concept and push you back down the ladder.
In 6+ years of professional development I've only ever been in one truly high performing team, plenty of people never have. That leadership and management, and they are two distinct things, is so bad about enabling their creation is something that doesn't get nearly enough attention.