Case Study Analysis: Optimizing Team Performance At Google

Google is one of the world top best companies to work for. Their culture is one of the things that set them apart from the rest. Just a simply search for Google’s workplace in the internet, makes you realize why. They have gyms and slides, employees can take naps to recharge and the company also offers competitive health benefits. Googles have transformed the workplace environment to accommodate their employees. They figured it out- working happy works. After this research, all I want is to convince the company I work for to mimic Google’s culture. I always hear the saying that “when employees are happy, they perform better” this is what comes to mind when I read this case. Google’s employees are so satisfy with everything the company offers that it is definitely showing in their performance. In the case study “Optimizing Team performance at Google”, we learn about project Aristotle which entailed the gathering of different data of 180 teams across the company to examine how each team performed better. “The only thing more surprising than what it found was what it didn’t find.”

Project

Aristotle’s mission was to find unique patterns in each team and identify what characteristic made the top performance team based on the team’s members and create a profile. But what they found was that this profile does not exist. “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.”

Google found that it didn’t matter who was in the group or their personality type. “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.” Google then took a different approach and researched the way the “group” functioned and if this made the performance different. The conclusion of Project Aristotle was that the high performance teams allowed its members to have equal input and they were very good at sensing others emotions. Problem #1 One of Google’s underlining problems is that the research was mainly focused on “who” was involved, disregarding the task or job each team had. This was never identified in the case study. What was each team assignment and were there multiple teams with the same assignment? Teams who had high performance were expected or more likely to perform high in other task and the teams who performed poorly at one task were expected to perform poorly on most. My concern is that the tasks were never revealed to us. To know and understand the employee’s behavior we must also understand the task they are performing.

Cause of Problem

The process or inputs at various levels are from a personal and situational factor. We do not know what the attitude, conformity or mindfulness was of each individual as a personal view and from a situational standpoint, we don’t know the mentoring involved or leadership and what their policies and practices are. In this situation there was no turnover but there were conflicts with their results of the study. I did read or see any involvement with discrimination.

Recommendation # 1

Despite the efforts of the group testing, I ask myself if the outcomes of the individuals’ behaviors are different if we knew what the job task was and to know the performance expected. My recommendation for improving the outcomes would be giving each employee the same job task and make it mandatory so all employees attitudes are similar given that it’s not a competition. Observation may take longer but according to Practical Management, it is essential in research. People tend to ease more when not being challenged, given a better outcome from a personal view standpoint.

Problem #2

There is a problem in the group team levels picked for the research assignment. Despite the efforts that Google was hoping to improve, the executive leaders emotional intelligence played a problem with the thought of putting the best people together would build the best teams. Although this is a good thought, how can you pick out the best vs. the worst without hurting emotions? How can you define the word best and place that with someone’s ability to perform a job task? This is a problem to look at one individual and say they’re the best and have another employee be considered not the best or fell that way.

Cause of Problem

Being picked to join a group for having one of the best qualities’ eliminates those who don’t view themselves as being the best. This picking excludes all individuals. Dividing up people based on their exceptionally smart and successful work against others who do minimal work is biased based on being judged and therefore creating a hostile environment. We know the individuals picked, held some kind of achievement or power and were stimulated by work. This excludes employees in basic standard positions throughout Google. If you don’t give all employees a chance, how can the research defend its outcomes?

Recommendation #2

Instead of being the one to choose certain employees for this research, I would hire an external recruiting team to put together the research program so there are no bias opinions and everyone will have a greater chance at being involved. According to Top Echelon, you can gain new perspectives and a larger candidate pool with a broader cultural fit to increase research within your company.

You will find out who is best at production with certain task and can use the quotas as a reference when explaining which employees were determined for the research. This will influence a positive perceived organizational support and employees will feel they have more value attainment thus will work harder.

Problem #3

Our McGraw Hill book explains the problem as teams that don’t allow team members to speak their opinions or give them the same opportunities to contribute are less successful than teams who provide everyone a chance to talk.

Cause of Problem

The teams were constantly talking over each other and trying to take control of the conversations. This allowed more arguing and less productivity towards the assignment. This also revealed the teams with members who lacked empathy or were able to sense each other’s feelings (and be sensitive to them) were less successful than teams who demonstrated empathy. The team with less sympathy and more demanding thoughts and ideas from each member was less successful and caused more stress for not having a structure in place where everyone has a chance to express their thoughts and ideas.

Recommendation #3

After carefully selecting team A and team B, why not rearrange employees where the successful outcomes being transferred with the failure outcomes. This will find a median outcome where both teams are striving to be excellent giving the best results of a successful outcome. You will have successful employees training and teaching those who lack and help improve their productivity. That will increase their individual differences and research will reflect a better performance in job task and satisfaction.