Team 2: Annie Ackroyd, Victoria Adair, Bret Petersen
Topic Overview
The Group 2 readings this week are about how people work together effectively in teams and influence each other within social networks. In his NYT article, Duhigg concludes that the most effective teams establish group norms that promote psychological safety. Conversational turn-taking and team-member empathy are the two major factors influencing psychological safety. In Chapter 4 of Social Physics, Pentland emphasizes the importance of engagement among group members to build trust and “promote the trustworthy cooperative behavior conducive for successful business partnerships” (p. 64).
There are lessons to be gleaned from both readings on leading effective teams within an organization. Duhigg provides an example of a team leader who divulged a personal hardship with his team to establish trust and build personal connections. This leader hoped to create a psychologically safe environment for team members. Pentland discusses the Bell Stars study, differentiating between average and exceptional team performers. According to Pentland, “…star performers promoted synchronized, uniform idea flow within the team by making everyone feel a part of it, and tried to reach a sufficient consensus so that everyone would willingly go along with new ideas” (p. 63).
According to Pentland, social pressure is a far more effective incentive than individual rewards (Ch. 4). People are most likely to adopt a new habit if others in their immediate social network - with whom they have face-to-face relationships - exert social pressure to do so.
As a takeaway from this week’s readings, don’t be afraid to let your guard down with your team. Get to know people on a more personal level, and let them get to know you. Strong relationships are key to social influence and group effectiveness.
Chapter Summaries
Duhigg Article
“If a company wants to outstrip its competitors, it needs to influence not only how people work but also how they work together.” ~ Duhigg
Duhigg (2016) explores Google’s quest to build an algorithm for creating perfect teams. At Google, like in many other workplaces, conventional wisdom (“put introverts together,” “everyone [should be] friends away from work,” etc.) ruled the strategy of team formulation. Google’s People Analytics division decided to put these tropes to the test in Project Aristotle.
- First, Google collected the data. They read academic studies and studied group composition at Google.
- Then they attempted to rearrange the data into an algorithm to maximize team potential… to no avail. No consistent pattern prevailed in the workforce and, even more confusingly, some strategies for team success contraindicated each other!
- The breakthrough came when Project Aristotle researchers began to focus on so-called “group norms,” which are the unwritten parts of a group’s culture that determines appropriate behavior.
- A 2008 study concluded that two factors rose to the top when considering group performance: 1) “equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking” (i.e. everyone roughly spoke the same amount during a meeting) and 2) “high average social sensitivity” (i.e. higher than average levels of EQ across the group).
- Together, these two factors influence psychological safety within the group. Project Aristotle began to study psychological safety in groups at Google and found that this concept, above all others, was “critical to making a team work” (Duhigg 2016).
Social Physics CH4 Engagement
Working together to accomplish a common goal is nothing new, and I believe each of us recognizes the importance of TEAM and the value of a collective effort. This chapter emphasized ways to work together and defined the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.
- SOCIAL PRESSURE - When we work closely together to accomplish a task, the social pressure felt by members of the team is real as each of us wants to pull our own weight and contribute to the common goal. I found it interesting, but not surprising that smaller groups and individual contact increased the level of peer pressure and directly influenced outcomes.
- DIGITAL ENGAGEMENT - Society has never been more digitally connected than it is today. Our ability to share information and connect with others is at an all-time high, but that connection alone isn’t enough to influence a desired outcome. Face-to-face interaction is most influential, however consistent and frequent messaging can be managed digitally thus building up trust levels amongst the team.
- SUBJUGATION and CONFLICT - Definition: Subjugation – to conquer or make subservient. The author described the importance of cooperative interactions amongst members of a team, group or community. We as leaders of a team must recognize the value of integrated communities. The “rich” should not dismiss the “poor’, the “strong” shouldn’t dominate the “weak”. Holistic inclusion will reduce conflict.
The RULES OF ENGAGEMENT are well defined in the text. (Pentland, 2015, p. 77 & 78)
- Engagement requires interaction
- Engagement requires cooperation
- Building Trust
Key Take-aways:
- On a scale of 1 (I am terrified to say anything at work because I may incur retribution) to 10 (I can confidently share my opinion and know I will be respected even if others disagree), how would you assess your workplace’s psychological safety?
- Describe a typical meeting in your work group. Is there equal distribution of talking? Are people aware of how their comments and behaviors impact others?
- What correlation exists between your two answers above?
- Have you identified a network of individuals who can help influence outcomes and guide teamwork?
- What percentage of time do you spend leading groups face-to-face vs. digitally?
References