Sum of the parts

September 7, 2016 1:17 PM

A while back, Google's Head of HR Laszlo Bock wanted to know what makes a team successful or not? Was it being composed of highly selective stars? Was it having an efficient and serious work ethic? Turns out, once they turned their attention to group norms, that the most important indicator of an effective group was pretty simple: equality.

Despite this, tech companies continue to hire for some muddled version of high potential individuality, even as Google starts to put these findings into practice.

posted by Potomac Avenue (27 comments total)

Excerpted from an NPR interview with Bock, I found this interesting:

VEDANTAM: What kind of questions were you asking them?

BOCK: Well, one, for example, was we would ask on a scale of 1 to 5, rate yourself as a software engineer. And it turns out that if you're a man, the correct answer, the most predictive of success, was I would rate myself a four on a scale of 1 to 5. And our hypothesis is that's because men tend to overestimate their capabilities, on average.

Men tend to be not as self-aware, on average, as women. And for a man to say four was a signal - not the only one - but a signal that maybe this guy's a little more self-aware. Maybe he realizes he has something to learn. And that was positively correlated with success here. If you are a woman, however, the score that was most predictive was a five out of five.

And our hypothesis there is because there's so much societal pressure on women to be self-effacing and humble and hang back and be modest and wait until they're certain rather than, you know, raising their hand at the first opportunity like men, on average, do, that if a woman says she's a five, first of all, she's probably going to have higher EQ and social perceptiveness, on average.

And second, she's going to be amazing. And indeed, that's what we see.

posted by figurant at 1:52 PM on September 7, 2016 [51 favorites]

The article seems to put a lot more emphasis on "psychological safety" than pure "equality", which makes a lot of sense. But it doesn't talk about when those situations are hard to achieve not because they are unspoken, but because they're unshared or genuinely unsafe to discuss at work.

They talk about Sakaguchi, the team leader, talking about his terminal cancer. But no one's going to be an ass to the guy with cancer. But, say, my husband the anarchist engineer would have had a harder time safely sharing in his conservative office environment that he was working nights as a street medic at OWS.

If you're only talking about safe parts of your personal life, you're still not sharing fully or feeling fully safe - you're still on guard that you might accidentally drop something.
posted by corb at 2:34 PM on September 7, 2016 [25 favorites]

If you're only talking about safe parts of your personal life, you're still not sharing fully or feeling fully safe - you're still on guard that you might accidentally drop something.

So you've come to the crux of the issue pretty quickly. I feel like I can't get into a lot of detail without rambling (having written and deleted paragraphs of rambling text) , but it also needs to be OK for people to bring their work self to work. I think the principle is solid but in practice there are corner cases. Perhaps the best thing I can say is that having a general level of safety to bring your whole self to work is a good approach but expecting it to be perfect is unrealistic.
posted by GuyZero at 3:01 PM on September 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

Also, just as companies adopt Google's technology like Kubernetes or MapReduce years after Google started using them internally, companies are copying Google's HR practices of nearly a decade ago rather than what they do now.
posted by GuyZero at 3:07 PM on September 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

‘‘I think, until the off-site, I had separated things in my head into work life and life life,’’ Laurent told me. ‘‘But the thing is, my work is my life. I spend the majority of my time working. Most of my friends I know through work. If I can’t be open and honest at work, then I’m not really living, am I?’’

What Project Aristotle has taught people within Google is that no one wants to put on a ‘‘work face’’ when they get to the office. No one wants to leave part of their personality and inner life at home.

Who will teach them that most people, unlike Laurent, want to pick and choose which aspects of their inner life their colleagues get to see?
posted by escabeche at 3:08 PM on September 7, 2016 [18 favorites]

Interesting, as I'm 5 weeks into a new job (instead of my normal contracts) because the product and technology here are so appealing to me. It's a small team, over 50% of whom are new hires this year. It's starting off well and management seems pretty decent so far, but already there's one potential scenario where I don't end up with the projects and autonomy I was hoping for, so it's definitely a psych project to see if I can go with the flow while still getting satisfaction from the work.

It's late in my career; this could potentially be my last ever job if it goes for a few years or more. I'm generally a fun guy and I want honest, pleasant and cooperative relationships with my co-workers, but I do have a fully-formed life outside of work. Work is important and meaningful to me, but it is not my life. So, there's going to be a limit on what I'm prepared to share with my co-workers. (Sharing your terminal cancer as an icebreaker.... I dunno..., but I'm not in his shoes).

Anyway the findings on equality and emotional safety, and doing better at conversation and listening - these are things I can apply.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:32 PM on September 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

And our hypothesis there is because there's so much societal pressure on women to be self-effacing and humble and hang back and be modest and wait until they're certain rather than, you know, raising their hand at the first opportunity like men, on average, do, that if a woman says she's a five, first of all, she's probably going to have higher EQ and social perceptiveness, on average.

More like a woman has to be oh, a 6 in order to get anywhere in the same way that a guy who rates himself a 2 would? You need to be damn well perfect as a woman, you can't just coast on "I'm a dude, I'm good," and have everything work out great for you.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:45 PM on September 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

After Sakaguchi spoke, another teammate stood and described some health issues of her own. Then another discussed a difficult breakup.

Worst. Team Building. Exercise. Ever.
posted by madajb at 5:23 PM on September 7, 2016 [10 favorites]

I can see this working in groups where the members are responsible, open minded "adults".

If not, from my own experience, it could boil down into basically more gossip material and further segregation of the afflicted individual(s).
posted by TrinsicWS at 5:32 PM on September 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

If not, from my own experience, it could boil down into basically more gossip material and further segregation of the afflicted individual(s).

This is sort of the point - the issue is less that you need to overshare but that the team reacts kindly to the things you do share.
posted by GuyZero at 5:42 PM on September 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

Who will teach them that most people, unlike Laurent, want to pick and choose which aspects of their inner life their colleagues get to see?

I feel the same way but it's not because of some abstract commitment to separate selves. It's because I know that I will be judged negatively on some aspects of my inner life in a work context. So if there work were a "safe space," sure, I'd let it all hang out. But here's the catch: it has to be a guaranteed safe space forever. If my current employer is like "We know you care more about medieval syntax than the CEO-driven initiative to reenergize the synergies, and that's okay because we value your contribution," that's great, but if in five years I'm looking for another job and the HR manager is like "Yeah but I hear he doesn't support hare-brained ideas from CEOs" and I get rejected, not great.

Until ability to live and even standard of living is completely divorced from what anyone else thinks of you, guaranteed forever, people who don't like to gamble are gonna need separate selves.
posted by No-sword at 5:42 PM on September 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

Also, just as companies adopt Google's technology like Kubernetes or MapReduce years after Google started using them internally, companies are copying Google's HR practices of nearly a decade ago rather than what they do now

Last month, a Google recruiter reached out, and she was upfront that their engineering hiring process turns away 10 "good enough to hire" candidates for every person they do hire.

My "tell us when you want to interview" email had 3 college textbooks, and like 10 youtube videos attached to it, so I could study. She spent most of her "sell" basically saying "if you can put up with all this tedious bullshit, you're the kind of person we want to talk to".

Since "putting up with tedious bullshit" is not how I want to spent my day, I declined to continue with the interview process.

So, looks like the Google recruiters are also part of that "decade ago" group as well.
posted by sideshow at 6:12 PM on September 7, 2016 [11 favorites]

I kind of reject this. The only two times I was ever in a successful team, there was a rigid, implacable hierarchy in place. All I can say is that I was never unhappy, and my positions tended towards the bases of the pyramids. The absolute MOST miserable experience in my working life was in a relaxed/collapsed hierarchy in a touchy-feeley environment. Familiarity breeds contempt.
posted by Chitownfats at 7:36 PM on September 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

you can't just coast on "I'm a dude, I'm good," and have everything work out great for you.

People don't seriously imagine it's that stark and simple, right? Nothing about work and making a living in the US right now, with maybe a few regional pockets like Silicon Valley excepted, is especially easy for anyone. We're in the middle of all kinds of massive economic and industrial shifts. Whole trades and industries that have been around and been relatively stable for generations are being disrupted at a pace that's very likely unprecedented. Except for those in certain very elite levels of society, nobody is just coasting. Men in general definitely benefit from relative advantages in most workplaces that are unfair even beyond pay (and in some workplaces, sexism is practically the air they breath in the upper levels of mgmt, mostly populated not just by any random men, but men from well-connected families). But don't imagine it's that stark and simple and absolute please. That makes invisible the many men who get punished, too, for not coming from the right kind of background, not being well connected, or otherwise not being particularly into aggressive, competitive behavior.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:50 PM on September 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

So, looks like the Google recruiters are also part of that "decade ago" group as well.

Interviews with big software companies are kind of ridiculous for time/effort investment across the board - but did they say anywhere that wasn't working out for them?
posted by atoxyl at 8:12 PM on September 7, 2016

Welcome to the Total Institution .
posted by Miko at 8:39 PM on September 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Welcome to the Total Institution.

Hasn't that always been the appeal of Google?
posted by lkc at 9:10 PM on September 7, 2016

Nothing about work and making a living in the US right now, with maybe a few regional pockets like Silicon Valley excepted, is especially easy for anyone

Silicon Valley and Seattle, in my experience.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 10:56 PM on September 7, 2016

I went from a kind of nightmare team of inefficiency to a hyper productive team that truly loved and cared for each other. (Basically, it was the same team, only 2/3's got laid off and we got a new boss.) I've worked on many many teams over the years, but this one was the best. And this article seemed to ring true. We were all equal partners in the decisions, and we all felt safe to speak our minds. I don't think you have to cry about your illnesses to make this work. That's just what worked for his team, too break down the initial barriers. The important thing is that people feel safe to be honest, but everyone trusts each other to be respectful.
posted by greermahoney at 11:31 PM on September 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

So Google is trying to reinvent teal organisations?
posted by DreamerFi at 12:18 AM on September 8, 2016

I don't think you have to cry about your illnesses to make this work. That's just what worked for his team, too break down the initial barriers. The important thing is that people feel safe to be honest, but everyone trusts each other to be respectful.

So much this. The best way to force smart, capable people to give only the minimum required not to get fired is to make it clear that no matter how good individual ideas are, the bullies still run the show.

I remember Jon Stewart describing a similar impulse in his writers room: the funniest idea wins, every time. That is not describing the output, it's describing the expectation of everyone in that room that there is safety to speak up and know that they will be judged fairly and in the context of their peers. (Sure, that organization wasn't perfect, but it's hard to argue that it didn't produce its own school of incisive but highly individual performers who succeed because they developed their own voice in a competitive space instead of learning to make their jokes sound just like whatever the boss liked.)

Psychological safety, implicitly, means no assholes, known and consciously corrected biases, well understood success and impact metrics that everyone can apply (even if it's just "the funniest idea wins every time") and ultimately a kind of vulnerability. Until one person shows vulnerability and the team demonstrates it can be deft and adult with that reality, nobody can really believe in their own psychological safety.

So yeah, it's incumbent on leaders to figure out how to know when to be vulnerable so that teams can learn how powerful it is.

I think the "my job is my life, all my friends are there" stuff is a huge distraction from the core principle here and I kind of wish they'd found more relatable examples.
posted by abulafa at 6:56 AM on September 8, 2016 [10 favorites]

On the one hand, this is some interesting research.
On the other hand, Google, the company that reads your emails, spending so much time trying to understand how to "optimize"everything about how people interact/behave/think, gives me a little shiver.
posted by emjaybee at 7:46 AM on September 8, 2016

This applies to the people who work at Google. But it's there enough data to suggest that this will apply outside? Is the relevant profile of the average Google employee the same as the average industry employee?
posted by asra at 8:22 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

The best way to force smart, capable people to give only the minimum required not to get fired is to make it clear that no matter how good individual ideas are, the bullies still run the show.

Boy, is that the truth, and well and succinctly put.
posted by Miko at 10:03 AM on September 8, 2016 [9 favorites]

So, looks like the Google recruiters are also part of that "decade ago" group as well.

It wouldn't surprise me if Google largely contracts out to external recruiting firms for at least the first few rounds, which could explain discrepancies between what Google thinks its recruiters do and what they actually do.

I think the "my job is my life, all my friends are there" stuff is a huge distraction from the core principle here and I kind of wish they'd found more relatable examples.

I'd go so far as to say that "my work colleagues are my friends" is counter-productive in most cases. It creates a sense of cliquishness that serves as a barrier to the inclusion of new members, especially ones who might not look like or share interests with the existing members. There's a reason why "culture fit" has become a giant red flag to anybody who cares about building diverse, inclusive workplaces.

Not to mention that friend groups can and often do operate with unhealthy dynamics anyway.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:36 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

I read this article when it first came out and I'm surprised no one has mentioned what I thought to be the most important part of it. Google identified two key group norms that ALL successful groups shared:

1. Members spoke in roughly the same proportion
2. They were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues

This has almost nothing to do with culture, and everything to do with habits. And I've found that coworkers who listen more and intuit more, are more well respected and well liked. And you can see the shift in productivity in a working meeting when that one person who talks too much enters the room.
posted by rebent at 12:07 PM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

It wouldn't surprise me if Google largely contracts out to external recruiting firms for at least the first few rounds, which could explain discrepancies between what Google thinks its recruiters do and what they actually do.


They don't actually. Most of their recruiters are on connect but work directly on site under Google managers etc.
posted by Carillon at 2:44 PM on September 10, 2016