What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (Adapted from the New York Times 28 /02/2016 by Dr. M Heffernan, O.A.M.) JULIA'S BACKGROUND By the time Julia Rozovsky was 25 years old she had had many experiences but felt she was not a good match for any of them. Julia had worked at a consulting firm, and as a researcher at a top university in America which was interesting but lonely. All she knew for certain was that she wanted to find a job that was more social. ''I wanted to be part of a community, part of something people were building together,'' she said. Julia thought about various opportunities but decided to complete a Master's in Business Administration (MBA) degree. At university Julia was assigned to a study group carefully planned to foster tight bonds. Study groups were considered a way for students to practice working in teams and a reflection of the increasing demand for employees who need to be able to understand and work within group dynamics. A worker today might start the morning by collaborating with a team of engineers, and then send emails to colleagues marketing a new brand, then jump on a conference call planning an entirely different product line, while also juggling team meetings with accounting and the party-planning committee. To prepare students for that complex world, business schools emphasise team-focused learning. Every day Julia and her four teammates gathered to discuss their studies, and prepare for assignments. Everyone was smart and curious, and they had a lot in common: they had gone to similar universities and had worked at comparable firms. These shared experiences, Julia hoped, would make it easy for them to work well together. But it didn't turn out that way. ''There are lots of people who say some of their best business-school friends come from their study groups, but it wasn't like that for me.'' Instead, Julia's study group was a source of stress. ''I always felt like I had to prove myself,'' she said. The team's dynamics could put her on edge. When the group met, teammates sometimes argued who would take the leadership role or criticised one another's ideas. There were conflicts over who was in charge and who got to represent the group in class. ''People would try to show authority by speaking louder or talking over each other. I always felt like I had to be careful not to make mistakes around them.'' So Julia started looking for other groups she could join. Teams were being formed for business case-competitions, contests in which participants proposed solutions to real-world business problems that were evaluated by judges, who awarded trophies and money. The competitions were voluntary, but the work wasn't all that different from what Julia did with her other study group. The members of her business case-competition team had a variety of professional experiences: Army officer, researcher at a think tank, director of a health-education non-profit organization and consultant to a refugee program. Despite their different backgrounds, however, everyone clicked. They emailed one another silly jokes and usually spent the first 10 minutes of each meeting chatting. \"When it came time to brainstorm we had lots of crazy ideas. We all felt like we could say anything to each other. No one worried that the rest of the team was judging them,'' Julia said. They won the competition. Julia's study group disbanded in her second semester. Her business-case competition team, however, stayed together for the two years she was undertaking her study. She found it odd that her experiences with the two groups were dissimilar. Each was composed of people who were bright and outgoing. When she talked one on one with members of her study group, the exchanges were friendly and warm. It was only when they gathered as a team that things became troubled. By contrast, her casePage 1 of 5 competition team was always fun and easy-going. In some ways, the team's members got along better as a group than as individual friends. GOOGLE Our technology-saturated age enables us to examine our work habits with detailed scrutiny. Today, researchers are devoting themselves to studying everything from team composition to email patterns in order to understand personal productivity; to understand how to make employees into faster, better and more productive versions of themselves, and why some people are more effective than everyone else. Five years ago, Google became focused on building the perfect team. The company's top executives long believed that building the best teams meant combining the best people. The technology industry is not just one of the fastest growing parts of our economy; it is also increasingly t h e world's dominant commercial culture. And at the core of Silicon Valley are certain beliefs: everything is different now, data reigns supreme, today's winners deserve to triumph because they are clear-eyed enough to discard yesterday's conventional wisdoms and search out the disruptive and the new. In 2012, Google embarked on Project Aristotle to study hundreds of Google's teams and figure out why some stumbled while others soared. Julia was hired by Google and was soon assigned to Project Aristotle. Some groups that were ranked among Google's most effective teams 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. Most confounding of all, two teams might have nearly identical makeups, with overlapping memberships, but radically different levels of effectiveness. As they struggled to figure out what made a team successful, Julia and her colleagues kept coming across research that focused on what are known as ''group norms.'' Project Aristotle's researchers began looking for norms. After looking at over a hundred groups for more than a year, Project Aristotle researchers concluded that understanding and influencing group norms were the keys to improving Google's teams. But Julia, now a lead researcher, needed to figure out which norms mattered most. Google's research had identified dozens of behaviors that seemed important, except that sometimes the norms of one effective team contrasted sharply with those of another equally successful group. Imagine you have been invited to join one of two groups. Team A is composed of people who are all exceptionally smart and successful. When you watch a video of this group working, you see professionals who wait until a topic arises in which they are expert, and then they speak at length, explaining what the group ought to do. When someone makes a side comment, the speaker stops, reminds every one of the agenda and pushes the meeting back on track. This team is efficient. There is no idle chitchat or long debates. The meeting ends as scheduled and disbands so everyone can get back to their desks. Team B is different. It's evenly divided between successful executives and middle managers with few professional accomplishments. Teammates jump in and out of discussions. People interject and complete one another's thoughts. When a team member abruptly changes the topic, the rest of the group follows him off the agenda. At the end of the meeting, the meeting doesn't actually end: Everyone sits around to gossip and talk about their lives. Most of all, employees had talked about how various teams felt. ''And that made a lot of sense to me, maybe because of my experiences while I was studying my MBA,'' Julia said. ''I'd been on some teams that left me feeling totally exhausted and others where I got so much energy from the group.'' Page 2 of 5 For Project Aristotle, the research pointed to particular norms that are vital to success. Julia and her colleagues had figured out which norms were most critical. After Julia gave one presentation on their findings, an employee named Matt approached the Project Aristotle researchers. Matt had an unusual background for a Google employee. Twenty years earlier, he was a member of a security team but left to become an electronics salesman and eventually landed at Google as a midlevel manager, where he has overseen teams of engineers who respond when the company's websites or servers go down. ''I might be the luckiest individual on earth,'' Matt said. ''I'm not really an engineer. I didn't study computers in college. Everyone who works for me is much smarter than I am.'' But he is talented at managing technical workers, and as a result, Matt has thrived at Google. Matt was particularly interested in Project Aristotle because the team he previously oversaw at Google hadn't jelled particularly well. ''There was one senior engineer who would just talk and talk, and everyone was scared to disagree with him,'' Matt said. ''The hardest part was that everyone liked this guy outside the group setting, but whenever they got together as a team, something happened that made the culture go wrong.'' Matt had recently become the manager of a new team, and he wanted to make sure things went better this time. Matt asked researchers at Project Aristotle if they could help. They provided him with a survey to gauge the group's norms. The team completed the survey, and a few weeks later, Matt received the results. He was surprised by what they revealed. He thought of the team as a strong unit. But the results indicated there were weaknesses: When asked to rate whether the role of the team was clearly understood and whether their work had impact, members of the team gave middling to poor scores. These responses troubled Matt, because he hadn't picked up on this discontent. He wanted everyone to feel fulfilled by their work. TASK: Analyse the case and write a response. Your response should be written in a case study format, and address the following sections. Refer to the Learning Lab resources for examples of writing a case study. A. Reading and analysing the case Analyse the case by asking questions a. What are 2 to 3 problems I can identify in the case? b. Why do they exist? c. How do they impact the organisation? d. Who is responsible for them? B. Writing the Case Study report Before writing your report read the \"ITM Guidelines for writing a case study assignment\". 1. Introduction a. Include a brief general statement about the sector the case study is from. b. Identify the challenges managers face when managing complex organisational environments in this organisational sector. c. Identify the particular company that is being analysed. Page 3 of 5 2. Background The 'Background' section is to set the scene so the reader has some information about the background of the company being analysed. Use your own words to paraphrase background information, relevant facts, and the most important issues from the case. Do not just copy or restate information from the case study: be brief and summarise. 3. Identification of issues and problems In this section you identify the major problems and their causes a. What are the major problems? What caused them? b. Describe the positive and negative aspects of the management approaches and activities in the case. Integrate the information in the case study with relevant management theories and approaches. Apply your knowledge and theories from Topics 1 to 6 ( management practices; organisational behaviour; groups and teams; managerial communication; managing socially responsible and ethical behaviour; and managerial leadership) Use concepts from class (scholarly readings, tutorial discussions, lectures) and your research to show which management theories and approaches apply to the problems you have identified. This research will help you develop possible solutions. Read https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/case-studies-tutorial to help you understand how to integrate theories 4. Possible Solutions This section should link to the issues and problems you identified in the previous section. a. Outline 3 possible alternatives that could resolve the issues and/or problems that you identified in section 3 (you are not required to write all alternatives...just the 3 key alternatives you consider are having the most impact on the organisation). b. What needs to change? c. Support your solutions by using evidence from your research. 5. Proposed Solution: a. Given the company's resources discuss one of the possible solutions in further detail; b. Explain why this solution was chosen; c. Support this solution with solid evidence from your research for this assignment and concepts from Topics 1 to 6 (scholarly readings, tutorial discussions, lectures); d. Consider strong supporting evidence, pros, and cons: justify why this solution is realistic and beneficial for the organisation; e. When justifying your solution consider the resources within the organisation to enable the implementation of each solution. Page 4 of 5 6. Recommendations a. Outline an action plan specifying 2 key strategies needed by management for accomplishing the proposed solution. One short term action linked to the solution (implemented immediately) One medium term action linked to the solution (implemented within twelve to eighteen months) What should be done and who should do it? What will be the benefit to the organisation? 7. Reference List In order to receive a Pass grade the Reference list must 1. contain a minimum of 5 scholarly references (journal articles and text books) 2. apply the Harvard referencing technique listed in alphabetical order by author family name Page 5 of 5 GUIDELINES FOR WRITING A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS These guidelines will guide you through the process of completing the assignment: What steps you need to take How to use the assignment information effectively How to read the case study How to structure and organise your writing What is a case study? A case study is an example of real-life issues (problems) in a company or organisation that you have been asked to solve. Writing a case study analysis requires you to uncover the problem or problems, examine alternative solutions and propose the most effective solution using supporting evidence, and finally, to make recommendations for action. Step 1: Preparing the Case Study Assignment 1. Before you begin writing, you need to understand what you have to do. First, read all the information that forms part of the assessment task: a. Read the task carefully to find out what you have to do. b. Read the marking rubric to find out what criteria will be used to mark the assignment. 2. Use reading strategies (skimming, scanning and deep reading) to understand the case. a. Take notes; highlight relevant facts, underline key problems. 3. Create a mind-map to summarise and organise ideas, and information. 4. Read the electronic links provided in the Week 4 Assessment Task to help you develop the academic skills needed to complete the case study assignment. Case Study Online and Interactive Tutorial: https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/ - in the Learning Lab 'Assessment Tasks' button click on 'Case Studies'... https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/casestudies-0 How to answer a case study: https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/case-studies-tutorial How to get help from an on-line tutor: (After opening the link click on \"Ask a learning advisor\" which is found on the right side under the heading 'ONLINE SERVICES') https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/smarthinking How to apply the Harvard Referencing style Page 1 http://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/bus/public/referencing ITM 2016 Developed by RMIT University Study and Learning Centre & Dr. M Heffernan, O.A.M. 5. Analyse the case by asking questions a. What are 2 to 3 problems I can identify in the case? b. Why do they exist? c. How do they impact the organisation? d. Who is responsible for them? 6. Review your course notes. Have you studied examples of similar problems? What methods, approaches or theories were discussed? 7. Research scholarly articles to increase your knowledge about the methods, approaches or theories that apply to the problems you identified. This research will help you develop possible solutions. 8. Develop possible solutions a. What needs to change? 9. Develop 2 to 3 possible alternative solutions to the issues (problems) you identified. a. Support your solutions by using evidence from your research. b. Explain which theory (or theories) supports each solution you suggest. 10. Select the best solution Which solution will have the most impact? Consider strong supporting evidence, pros, and cons: is this solution realistic? Step 2: Writing the assignment Once you have gathered the necessary information, a first draft of your analysis should include these sections (you may use these headings in your assignment or develop your own headings): 1. Introduction Include a brief general statement about the sector the case study is from. Identify the challenges managers face when managing complex organisational environments in this organisational sector. Identify the particular company you are going to analyse. 2. Background The 'Background' section is to set the scene so the reader has some information about the background of the company you are analysing. Use your own words to paraphrase background information, relevant facts, and the most important issues from the case. 2 Do not just copy information from the case study: be brief and summarise. Page ITM 2016 Developed by RMIT University Study and Learning Centre & Dr. M Heffernan, O.A.M. 3. Identification of issues and problems In this section you identify the major problems and their causes What are the major problems? What caused them? Describe the positive and negative aspects of the management approaches and activities in the case. Integrate the information in the case study with relevant management theories and approaches. o Use concepts from class (scholarly readings, tutorial discussions, lectures) and your research to show which management theories and approaches apply to the problems you have identified Read https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/case-studies-tutorial to help you understand how to integrate theories 4. Possible Solutions This section should link to the issues and problems you identified in the previous section. Outline 2 to 3 possible alternatives that could resolve the issues and/or problems that you identified in section 3 (you are not required to write all alternatives...just the key alternatives you consider are having the most impact on the organisation) 5. Proposed Solution Provide one specific and realistic solution. Explain why this solution was chosen. Support this solution with solid evidence from your research for this assignment and concepts from class (scholarly readings, tutorial discussions, lectures). 6. Recommendations What specific strategies are needed by management for accomplishing the proposed solution? o What should be done and who should do it? Which management approach/es would you recommend the company adopt to meet the challenges it currently faces? What outcomes would you expect these approaches to have? 7. Reference List Minimum of 5 references in the Harvard referencing style http://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/bus/public/referencing SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT ITM 2016 Developed by RMIT University Study and Learning Centre & Dr. M Heffernan, O.A.M. Page You can submit your assignment through Turnitin multiple times if you would like to check its similarity. However, please keep in mind that the final paper you submit will be the paper that gets graded. 3 Before you submit your assignment online through Blackboard (Assessment - Assignment 1 - Submit your Assignment 1 Case Study here) seek help from your tutor Study and Learning Centre SLAMS Library Finalising the Case Study assignment After you have composed the first draft of your case study analysis: Read through your draft carefully. Check for any gaps or inconsistencies in your content or structure: o Have you identified key issues and problems? o Have you provided solid evidence and supported the evidence with theories and concepts from scholarly articles? o Do the solutions link to the issues (problems) you identified? o Is any part of the analysis missing? o Have you provided in-text referencing to indicate where you have integrated theories and concepts? o Have you provided a reference list at the end of the paper using the Harvard referencing style? Make sure the list is in alphabetical order by family name! Make any necessary revisions. Proofread and edit your analysis. Submit it through Turnitin to check the similarity rating. Use the University services to help you o SLAMS o Study and Learning Centre o Library o English Language Centre o Your Tutor (on Blackboard) o Your tutor in weekly tutorials Submit the final assignment. o Make sure your name and student ID are written on the front page in the Header. Page 4 ITM 2016 Developed by RMIT University Study and Learning Centre & Dr. M Heffernan, O.A.M. QUEST TO BUILD PERFECT TEAM NAME OF STUDENT NAME OF TUTOR COURSE TITLE DATE GERVAIS, D. (1996). Literary Englands: versions of "Englishness" in modern writing. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press.The case study being investigated is located in the field of technology that is available these days in our current world. Technology is everywhere in the world and therefore it is one of the fastest growing fields which are in the world today. And there are many challenges which the managers who manage the complex organizational environments in this organizational sector. These problems include: when the managers do not have the managerial skills required by a specific organization and therefore the management sector may not be efficiently done. This may lead to an organization generating less money (if the organization is a money generating fun organization) or even may lead to the organization shutting down due to mismanagement. In this case we are able to see that the subject of discussion in this case is the google company which is worldly known as the main internet company and is widely known all over the world. Most youths within the age of 25 years do not always know what to do with their lives at that age an this also included , Julia Rozovsky who like the others knew nothing to do with her life at her age like most 25-year-olds. She had been working at a consultant firm even though it wasn't a good match for her. It was then that she became a very good researcher for two different professors at the university of Harvard which according to her was really interesting and entertaining though it had only one problem that came with it, it was very lonely. She thought that she could work in a fast growing start up or maybe she could just work in a big corporation. All that she was sure of was the fact that she needed to work in a more social job that involved much more number of people doing the same work together. In that way the working would be more enjoyable and less boring to her. All she knew was that she wanted was to find a job that was more social to her. To her she said that she really wanted to be part of a community or part of people or part of something that would work among themselves to build together with their will and physical power. Rozovsky also added up that she would think about more opportunities which were: a Ph.D. program, internet companies etc though according to her nothing at all seemed exactly right. So in the end she decided on choosing a path that she would follow in which she would put off making any form of decision. she appied to a business school and was accepted by the Yale school of management. And so when she was admitted in the school of Yale, she was immediately assigned to one of the study groups, which had been carefully engineered by the school to develop tight bonds among the students. The school study groups became a sort of rite of passage program, as a way for a student to be able to practice in team effort and working together in groups and also to be able to show each student as an individual that there is an increasing demand for employees who can be able to manage and navigate group dynamics. In the current times workers can start each and every beginning of work. A worker today might start the morning by collaborating with a team of engineers. Each and every day, within the period of after classes and dinner time, she and four of her teammates would always gather in any of their rooms between classes or after dinner, Rozovsky and her four teammates gathered to discuss homework assignments, compare spreadsheets anGERVAIS, D. (1996). Literary Englands: versions of "Englishness" in modern writing. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press.d strategize for exams. Each and every one was smart and curious, and they also had a lot in common: They had gone to similar colleges and had worked at analogous firms. These shared experiences, Rozovsky hoped, would lay down a foundation for them to be able to easily work together as a team but instead it became kind of an obstacle for them. She said that unlike most people who said that their best business-school friends came from their study groups, it was not the same case for her. Instead, Rozovsky's study group was a source of stress. She confessed that she has always felt like she had to prove herself and that the teams dynamic could put her on the edge whenever her group met, due to their attachment , when they had meetings they would assemble in one place and instead of the meeting immediately starting they would first share some emails and they would first have chats and gossip around and the meetings would start later than scheduled and also during the meeting if a point is said, one member of the team may start criticizing the point and this would cause an argument which would also consume time of the meeting. Five years ago, Google which is one of the most proselytizers of how the study of the workers in a company can improve on the productivity became really focused on the building of a perfect team. The tech giant has spent untold millions of dollars measuring nearly an aspect of its employees lives. Google's people operations department has scrutinized everything from how frequently particular people eat together to which traits the best managers share The company's top executives long believed that building the best teams would have lead to combining the best people. They also used other bits of conventional wisdom as well, like ''It's better to put introverts together,'' said Abeer Dubey, a manager in Google's People Analytics division, or ''Teams are more effective when everyone is friends away from work.'' But, Dubey went on, ''it turned out no one had really studied which of those were GERVAIS, D. (1996). Literary Englands: versions of "Englishness" in modern writing. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press.true.'' 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 thhe studying of the different teams, the researchers were able to very well analyse 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 were able to draw diagrams showing which of which teams had overlapping memberships and which groups had exceeded their departments' goals. They were able to even study 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 absolutely impossible to find patterns or any form of evidence that the composition of a team made any difference. Dubey said that they were able to look at 180 different teams from all over the company and the were able to obtain lots of data but there was nothing at all evident that showed that a mix of specific personality types or skills or even any form of backgrounds made any difference and that the 'who ' part of the equation created by the researchers did not seem to matter and that they were able to determine that the groupd that were proved to be more effective were composed of friends that were outside work. Those problems in this case would have been solved as a team and through the strong will of the teammates. This would have been made possible if they would have been able to come up with very strict rules to makes sure that any form of distraction would be avoided and also to put measures that should be taken as a form of punishment for anyone who breaks the rules that have been set by themselves SCHNEIDER2003, M.(. And due to that each and every member of that team should have taken part in the making of the rules so that if he or she breaks any of the rules should not have any excuse to break the rule or to say that he or she was not present during the making of rules and therefore will not refuse to be punished for his or her mistakes. To be able to eliminate these problems that are affecting the internet company the company must be willing to carry out talks within the company to the employees of the company so that the employees may be able to understand the reasons why they should be avoiding those things mentioned in the above report. The above method, even though there are other methods, was chosen as the best since by talking to the employees who work for the company and without them the company cannot be able to function properly. And by talking to them there will be a change in attitude towards work and how they carry out their wok. And with all the above reasons we are able to see that there is no effect between friends and work. WORK CITED SEILER, S., & HANNON, K. (2011). Damn good dogs!: the real story of Uga, the University of Georgia's bulldog mascots. Athens, University of Georgia Press. GERVAIS, D. (1996). Literary Englands: versions of "Englishness" in modern writing. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. HAYES, N., & HAYES, N. (2002). Managing teams: a strategy for success. London, Thomson Learning. DRAKE, J. K. (2013). Academic advising approaches: strategies that teach students to make the most of college. SCHNEIDER, M. (2003). Automotive service management series. Clifton Park, NY, Delmar Learning