In February 2016, the New York Times published an article that described one researcher’s journey to find the most effective element to a productive team. Charles Duhigg (2016), author of this article, used the experiences and findings from a study at the Google Corporation, called Project Aristotle, to highlight the importance of relationships within a team. The results of this in depth team study pointed to the positive effect that psychological safety has on the overall productivity of a team (Duhigg, 2016). Social norms, trust, empathy and communication all represented the critical attributes within the concept of psychological safety (Duhigg, 2016). When team members felt comfortable sharing their thoughts, ideas, and feelings with the rest of the team, the overall productivity of the team was improved (Duhigg, 2016). Teams with high levels of intellectual ability did not preform as well as teams that had established relationships based on trust and openness but average levels of ability (Duhigg, 2016). Project Aristotle, with the use of many resources and years of study, provided a well-developed theory on effective teams, but failed to acknowledge one important area, team leadership. Without the right team leadership to help develop and enforce the psychological safety within the team, the effectiveness and productivity of the team would suffer.
Within teams, sometimes formal leaders are appointed and other times there can be a shared leadership responsibility that is distributed among multiple team members (Northouse, 2016, p. 365). Regardless of whether the leadership is shouldered by one individual or shared amongst the team, the leader’s responsibility to closely monitor the team and take appropriate actions still remains important (Northouse, 2016, p. 366). To assist leaders in analyzing the team, a model of team leadership, called the Hill Model, was created. The Hill Model emphasizes the importance of leadership decisions, whether to monitor the team or take action, and then connects these decisions to the overall effectiveness of the team (Northouse, 2016, p. 366). At the center of the Hill Model for Team Leadership are the two types of leadership actions that can be taken, internal and external (Northouse, 2016, p. 366). These actions are then further broken into different categories; task and relational for internal actions, and environmental for external actions (Northouse, 2016, p. 366). When monitoring the team, the leader can refer to the Hill Model to determine what areas should be analyzed and what appropriate action should be taken when a problem is identified.
Task and relational team standards are both located under internal leadership actions and are intertwined in their impact on team effectiveness (Northouse, 2016, p. 375). As noted by Northouse (2016), both task-focused and person-focused leadership behavior have been connected to team effectiveness (p.375). If the relational function of the team is developed and maintained then the task completion will be performed much easier (Northouse, 2016, p. 375). Similarly, if the goals and tasks are completed successfully, the relational aspects of the team will be easier to maintain (Northouse, 2016,p. 375). Leaders can be more effective in their actions when they understand this relationship between task completion and the relational aspects of the team. Additionally, understanding this connection between task success and team relationships only further highlights the important findings from Project Aristotle.
All the decisions and actions outlined in the Hill Model for team leadership are focused on the final outcome, which is team effectiveness (Northouse, 2016, p. 367). As discussed by Northouse (2016), “the two critical functions of team effectiveness are performance (task accomplishment) and development (team maintenance)” (p. 368). Development specifically relates to the cohesiveness and relationships among the team members (Northouse, 2016, p.368). To help achieve these team objectives, scholars have created a list of standards that can be used to help develop an effective team (Norhtouse, 2016, p.368). Leaders can use this list of standards, in conjunction with the Hill Model to help assess their team’s performance. Hackman (2012) included in his list of enabling conditions of group effectiveness the following: compelling purpose, right people, real team, clear norms of conduct, supportive organizational context, and team-focused coaching (as cited in Northouse, 2016,p. 368). Clear norms of conduct, found in the previous list of standards, are fundamental to the effectiveness of the team. It can then be further established that norms of conduct are one of the areas that team leaders should be assessing and developing in an effort to produce the most effective team.
After the researches presented their findings from Project Aristotle to some of the employees at Google, a mid-level manager approached them to seek further guidance (Duhigg, 2016). The results of Project Aristotle encouraged Matt Sakaguchi, a team leader for a group of engineers, to assess his team’s performance. He had just received a new team and in his previous team he noted that the norms of conduct were not clearly established (Duhigg, 2016). One previous member would always dictate the team conversations and other members were hesitant to speak up because he was more senior then them (Duhigg, 2016). Sakaguchi noticed that this effected the team’s performance, similar to the findings of Project Aristotle, and wanted to ensure his new team was more successful. According to Northouse (2016), effective leaders continually assess their team and take appropriate actions when necessary to increase performance (p.372). Sakaguchi, wanting to be an effective team leader, decided it was time to take action. This assessment and leadership decision to take action follows the concepts presented in the Hill Model for Team Leadership. But, Sakaguchi was left thinking, where do I start with the team assessment?
As previously noted, leaders should assess their team against the established team standards that have been already developed by scholars using whatever tools are available (Northouse, 2016, p.272). The researches from Project Aristotle provided Sakaguchi with a survey to distribute to his team members (Duhigg, 2016). This was a new team for Sakaguchi and the team members had no experience with this type of leadership before and were therefore intrigued and interested to see what developed from this survey. To Sakaguchi’s disbelief, the results showed that the team members did not think their roles were clearly defined and that their actions had little impact on the organization (Duhigg, 2016). Sakaguchi had originally thought that the team felt strongly about their role in the team and the organization and wanted all team members to feel fulfilled by their work (Duhigg, 2016).
To break these invisible barriers that prevented the team members from speaking out about their dissatisfaction, Sakaguchi called for an off-site, more personal team get together. He used this opportunity to share a personal health issue with the team (Duhigg, 2016). The team members each then took turns sharing personal stories that helped strengthen the team bond. After the team shared their personal stories, the results of the survey were discussed and the team members all felt more open and trusting to speak about their true feelings and thoughts with regards to the team (Duhigg, 2016). As a result of this off-site meeting, the team and team leader made a commitment to be more honest and open about their feelings amongst the team (Duhigg, 2016).
From the Hill Model and from the list of team effectiveness standards, it can be determined that relationships within teams and norms of conduct are critical to the success of the team. But, even more important are the actions taken by the leader to help develop and establish the relationships and norms of conduct within the group. Google’s Project Aristotle helped to further define the best relationship and group norms for an effective team. But, it is up to the leaders to establish the norms of conduct and relationships within a team that promote psychological safety, which will result in the most effective outcome for their team.
References:
Duhigg, C. S. (2016, February 25). What Google Learned From its Quest to Build the Perfect Team. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.