Exploring the Secrets Behind High-Performing Teams
Written on
Understanding Team Dynamics
Why do some teams excel while others struggle?
Throughout my career, I've encountered comments like, "I didn’t realize you were so sensitive," or, "You’re emotional, whereas I’m more focused." Whether sensitivity is a flaw or not isn't clear, but what I do recognize is the significance of my work environment in determining my success or failure.
As I progress in my career as a software engineer, my motivations have evolved. While technology still matters, financial gain is no longer the primary driver for my job choices. I find myself drawn to positions that may offer less money but provide a better work atmosphere. Factors such as the office layout, team size, and my perceptions of potential colleagues significantly influence my job satisfaction.
Though I have my own criteria for identifying an ideal team and environment, the broader question of how to form effective teams has long intrigued me. Simply assembling individuals and assigning them tasks does not guarantee successful outcomes. So, what elements should we consider to cultivate a productive team? What sets high-performing groups apart from the rest?
To explore this, I began a research journey, uncovering insights from a study by Google and another conducted by Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson.
Google's Project Aristotle
In 2012, Google initiated Project Aristotle to investigate the factors contributing to team success. Analyzing data and interviewing over 180 teams revealed that individual personalities were not the key to effectiveness. The following aspects were found to have little correlation with team performance:
- Co-location in the same office
- Consensus-based decision-making
- Extroversion of team members
- Individual contributions
- Workload distribution
- Seniority
- Team size
- Tenure
After determining that the composition of a team was less significant than previously thought, researchers shifted their focus to team interactions and group norms—these unwritten rules dictate how teams collaborate.
The Importance of Psychological Safety
Two common behaviors emerged among successful teams:
1. Balanced Participation
Effective teams exhibited an equal distribution of speaking time among members. As Woolley noted, "Teams performed better when everyone had the opportunity to contribute." Conversely, if only a few individuals dominated discussions, overall team intelligence would decline.
Five Essential Characteristics of Successful Teams
According to Google's findings, several factors contribute to effective teamwork, with psychological safety being paramount:
- Psychological Safety: Feeling secure in taking risks and being vulnerable with team members.
- Dependability: Completing tasks on time and maintaining quality.
- Structure and Clarity: Clearly defined roles, plans, and goals.
- Meaning: Having a sense of purpose and understanding the importance of one’s work.
- Impact: Recognizing the significance of one's contributions and their ability to effect change.
Fostering Psychological Safety
Creating a psychologically safe environment can be challenging. Professor Edmondson offers three strategies to promote this atmosphere:
- Frame tasks as learning opportunities rather than execution challenges, acknowledging uncertainty and interdependence.
- Admit your own fallibility to encourage others to voice their thoughts.
- Cultivate curiosity by asking questions, which fosters open dialogue.
Edmondson emphasizes that team members must be humble in facing challenges, curious about each other’s contributions, and willing to take risks to learn.
In a New York Times article, Charles Duhigg described how Google manager Matt Sakaguchi implemented psychological safety after discovering his team's weaknesses. He encouraged team members to share personal stories, starting with his own battle with cancer. This openness led to a culture where individuals felt comfortable discussing personal challenges, ultimately enhancing team cohesion.
To Sakaguchi, it became evident that psychological safety and emotional sharing are interconnected. They embody the unwritten rules we rely on to connect with one another:
> "...to be fully present at work, to feel 'psychologically safe,' we must share our fears without fear of repercussions. We need to discuss the difficult topics and engage with colleagues who challenge us. Work should be more than just a task." — Charles Duhigg
Conclusion
In our quest for optimization, we sometimes overlook that success stems from human experiences. By embracing imperfections and understanding the significance of psychological safety, we can encourage individuals to bring their full selves to work, tackling challenges together.
> "In isolation, we can accomplish tasks, but when we reach out to one another, extraordinary outcomes can emerge." — Amy Edmondson
I share insights on engineering, technology, and leadership for a community of inquisitive minds. Join my free email newsletter for exclusive content or sign up for Medium here.
Explore my [video course](https://www.udemy.com/course/memory-leaks-web-apps/) on Udemy: How to Identify, Diagnose, and Fix Memory Leaks in Web Apps.
2. Social Awareness
Successful teams demonstrated a keen ability to read their colleagues' emotions through vocal tone, facial expressions, and other nonverbal signals. Members were attuned to each other's feelings.
When given a choice, opt for a dynamic team environment—one that may appear chaotic but fosters open communication and emotional exchange—over a rigidly structured group focused solely on individual performance. While the latter might yield high individual output, the former often results in greater collective success.
In psychology, these traits of conversational balance and social awareness fall under the concept of psychological safety. As defined by Professor Edmondson, "Psychological safety is the belief that one will not face punishment or humiliation for expressing ideas, questions, or mistakes."
> "No one gets up to go to work wanting to appear ignorant, incompetent, or negative. This self-protective strategy is common," Edmondson explained.