Please complete the Case Study following the outline as noted below:

Optimizing Team Performance at Google

Google is well on its way to ruling the universe. Whether this is its actual goal or not, the companys short- and long-term success depend on the performance of its work teams. Realizing this, Google applied its immense human, technological, and financial resources to finding out what makes top-performing teams so effective. Despite its legendary achievements, the company knew that teams vary considerably in terms of their performance, member satisfaction, and level of cohesion and conflict. To understand why, it did what it does bestcollect and analyze data. It created Project Aristotle and spent millions of dollars to gather mountains of data from 180 teams across the company. The only thing more surprising than what it found was what it didnt find.

What Did Google Expect to Find?

Google sliced and diced the team data looking for patterns that would distinguish the most successful from the less successful teams. It expected that some combination of team member characteristics would reveal the optimal team profile. Such a profile or pattern never emerged. Google examined seemingly everything, such as team composition (team member personality, experience, age, gender, and education), how frequently teammates ate lunch together and with whom, their social networks within the company, how often they socialized outside the office, whether they shared hobbies, and team managers leadership styles. It also tested the belief that the best teams were made up of the best individual contributors, or that they paired introverts with introverts and friends with friends. To the researchers amazement, these assumptions were simply popular wisdom. In sum, the who part of the equation didnt seem to matter. Even more puzzling was that two teams might have nearly identical makeups, with overlapping memberships, but radically different levels of effectiveness, 80 said Abeer Dubey, a manager in Googles People Analytics division.

What Did the Company Actually Find?

It turned out it wasnt so much who was in the group but the way the group functioned or operated that made the performance difference. Group normsexpected behaviors for individuals and the larger teamhelped explain why two groups with similar membership function very differently. But this finding was only the beginning. Now Google needed to identify the operative norms. Members of the Project Aristotle team began looking for team member data referring to factors such as unwritten rules, treatment of fellow team members, ways they communicated in meetings, and ways they expressed value and concern for one another. Dozens of potential norms emerged, but unfortunately the norms of one successful team often conflicted with those of another. To help explain this finding, the Project Aristotle team reviewed existing research on teams and learned that work teams that showed success on one task often succeed at most. Those that performed

poorly on one task typically performed poorly on others. This helped confirm their conclusion that norms were the key. However, they still couldnt identify the particular norms that boosted performance or explain the seemingly conflicting norms of similarly successful teams.

Then came a breakthrough. After intense analysis, two behaviors emerged.

First, all high-functioning teams allowed members to speak in roughly the same proportion. Granted, they did this in many different ways, from taking turns to having a moderator orchestrate discussions, but the end result was the same everybody got a turn.

Second, the members of successful teams seemed to be good at sensing other team members emotions, through either their tone of voice, their expressions, or other nonverbal cues.

Having identified these two key norms, the Project Aristotle team was able to conclude that many other team inputs and processes were far less important or didnt matter at all. Put another way, teams could be very different in a host of ways, but so long as everybody got and took a turn when communicating, and members were sensitive to each other, then each had a chance of being a top-performing team. With this knowledge in hand, now came the hard part. How to instill these norms in work teams at Google? How could Google instill the appropriate communication practices, as well as build empathy into their teams dynamics?

Step 1: Define the problem.

A. Look first to the Outcomes box of the Organizing Framework to help identify the important problem(s) in this case. Remember that a problem is a gap between a desired and current state. State your problem as a gap, and be sure to consider problems at all three levels. If more than one desired outcome is not being accomplished, decide which one is most important and focus on it for steps 2 and 3.

B. Cases have protagonists (key players), and problems are generally viewed from a particular protagonists perspective. You therefore need to determine from whose perspectiveemployee, manager, team, or the organizationyoure defining the problem. As in other cases, whether you choose the individual or organizational level in this case can make a difference.

C. Use details in the case to determine the key problem. Dont assume, infer, or create problems that are not included in the case.

D. To refine your choice, ask yourself, Why is this a problem? Focus on topics in the current chapter,

because we generally select cases that illustrate concepts in the current chapter. (Reminder:

Chapter 8 is the first chapter in the Groups/ Teams section of the book. Perhaps particular

attention at this level is warranted.)

Step 2: Identify causes of the problem by using material from this chapter, which has been summarized in the Organizing Framework for Chapter 8 and is shown in Figure 8.8. Causes will tend to show up in either

the Inputs box or the Processes box.

A. Start by looking at the Organizing Framework (Figure 8.8) and determine which person factors, if any, are most likely causes to the defined problem. For each cause, explain why this is a cause of the problem. Asking why multiple times is more likely to lead you to root causes of the problem. For example, do particular team

member characteristics help explain the problem you defined in Step 1?

B. Follow the same process for the situation factors. For each ask yourself, Why is this a cause? By asking why multiple times you are likely to arrive at a more complete and accurate list of causes. Again, look to the Organizing

Framework for this chapter for guidance.

C. Now consider the Processes box in the Organizing Framework. Are any processes at the individual, group/team, or organizational level potential causes of your defined problem? For any process you consider, ask yourself, Why

is this a cause? Again, do this for several iterations to arrive at the root causes.

D. To check the accuracy or appropriateness of the causes, map them onto the defined problem.

Step 3: Make your recommendations for solving the problem. Consider whether you want to resolve it, solve it, or dissolve it (see Section 1.5). Which recommendation is desirable and feasible?

A. Given the causes identified in Step 2, what are your best recommendations? Use the material in

the current chapter that best suits the cause. Remember to consider the OB in Action and Applying OB boxes, because these contain insights into what others have done. These insights might be especially useful for this case.

B. Be sure to consider the Organizing Framework both person and situation factors, as well as processes at different levels.

C. Create an action plan for implementing your recommendations.