Traits of Effective Teams: Unveiling Secrets from Google's Research and 'Five Dysfunctions of a Team'
03/09/2023 – The formula for an effective team sometimes seems to be the Holy Grail of organizational development. You might wonder, is there a science to creating high-performing teams? Let's try to demystify the traits of an effective team.
-
In 2015, Google embarked on a multi-year research project codenamed "Project Aristotle". Their goal was to decipher the DNA of successful teams. The initiative was named after the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotles, who believed that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." This notion is central to the understanding of effective teamwork; a high-performing team is more than just a collection of individuals with specific skills. Instead, according to their research, an effective team emerges from the following traits, shown in order of importance:
Psychological Safety: Team members feels safe to take risks and vulnerable in front of each other.
Dependability: Members reliably complete the work they committed to on time and with the expected quality.
Structure and clarity: This reflects an individual’s understanding of the teams structure and expectations
Meaning: It’s clear why the team and individual does what it intends to do.
Impact: The results of the team’s effort are deemed to make a difference in the bigger picture
For further information on their research, please visit re:work with Google.
-
In 2002, Patrick Lencioni explored team dynamics through his acclaimed book, "Five Dysfunctions of a Team." In this management fable, we follow Kathryn, an experienced CEO, on her path to turn around the broken team dynamics of the young Silicon Valley startup DecisionTech.
The author suggests that a well-functioning team “remains the ultimate competitive advantage, both because it is so powerful and so rare”. Powerful, because teamwork amplifies individual strengths and mitigates weaknesses, allowing a group to achieve more together than they ever could individually. Rare, because most organizations fail to overcome the following five dysfunctions. Lencioni suggests these dysfunctions to be stacked on top of each other like a pyramid: if one layer fails, the whole building collapses.
Absence of Trust: Team members try to be invulnerable in front of each other.
Fear of Conflict: An environment that fosters artificial harmony instead of healthy conflict.
Lack of Commitment: Individuals did not honestly buy into the team’s greater purpose or goal.
Avoidance of Accountability: Team members do not hold each other accountable for their commitments.
Inattention to Results: Members put their individual needs above the collective goals of the team.
In the realm of team dynamics, two seminal works stand out: Google's Project Aristotle and Patrick Lencioni's 'The Five Dysfunctions of a Team.' Though they approach the subject from different angles — one from rigorous data analysis and the other from personal experience in organizational psychology — they both offer invaluable insights into what makes teams succeed or fail. Looking at these two bodies of knowledge, what can we learn about great teams?
The Foundation – Psychological Safety & Trust
Google found that the most crucial factor for team effectiveness isn’t the collective IQ or the skills of team members. It is something far more intangible: psychological safety. A situation where individuals feel safe to express ideas, take risks and overall be vulnerable without fear of ridicule or reprisal. Google is convinced, that this is the single most important factor – without it, all other traits become irrelevant.
Surprisingly close to that, Lencioni defines the most fundamental dysfunction in a team to be the "Absence of Trust". He frames that absence specifically as “a situation where team members are reluctant to be vulnerable”.
Without trust, the second dysfunction is just around the corner: fear of conflict. And conflict is crucial. When team members feel free to express differing opinions, it encourages critical thinking and challenges the status quo – which almost inevitably will result in better outcomes.
Combining those insights, it’s safe to say that psychological safety and trust act as the foundation upon which effective teams are built. With great trust comes great opportunity.
The Symphony of Clarity and Alignment
But of course, effective teams need more than just a safety net and openness for healthy conflict; they require a clear direction.
According to Google, team members must have clarity about their roles, plans, and goals. This loosely aligns with Lencioni's concept of "Lack of Commitment" being another dysfunction. When teams engage in open discussions and arrive at clear decisions, everyone is more committed to the collective goal. A sense of clarity and alignment acts like a compass that guides the team through complexities and ambiguities.
Structure and clarity are not mere organizational tools; they are extensions of a culture built on psychological safety and trust. When individuals trust each other and feel safe, they are more willing to seek and provide clarity. This openness eliminates the fog of uncertainty that often plagues teams and leads to inefficiency or mistakes. It provides a roadmap that helps everyone understand not just the "what" but also the "why" behind their tasks. This shared understanding, in turn, cultivates a deeper sense of commitment, a key concern in Lencioni's framework.
Lencioni also speaks about the "Avoidance of Accountability," where team members hesitate to call out peers on performance or behaviors that could hurt the team. Teams that have psychological safety are spaces where debates aren't just tolerated; they're encouraged. Diverse opinions are aired, weighed, and incorporated into a collective decision. It's easier to 'disagree and commit,' as Lencioni advocates, when you know your voice has been heard and considered. Commitment then becomes not just an obligation but a choice, a consensual agreement that the team's route is the best one available.
In such an environment, accountability is almost a natural byproduct. If you're committed to a plan you've had a part in creating, you're much more likely to take ownership of its outcomes. And when people know what is expected of them and hold each other accountable, it paves the way for individual and collective growth.
The Pursuit of Collective Impact and Goals
While Google's Project Aristotle focuses on positive attributes like 'Meaning' and 'Impact,' Lencioni warns against pitfalls such as 'Inattention to Results.' Although not directly related, these concepts intersect in interesting ways.
Google claims that teams work best when individuals find 'Meaning' in their tasks. When the 'why' behind a task is clear, it adds a layer of intrinsic motivation that goes beyond monetary or external rewards. Meaning doesn't just help in individual commitment; it elevates the entire team's engagement. Similarly, when a team perceives that their work has a broader 'Impact,' the motivation to excel increases. This sense of purpose and meaningful contribution to a bigger picture can unify a team and heighten performance.
On the flip side, Lencioni describes 'Inattention to Results' as a dysfunction where team members prioritize personal goals over collective objectives. This pitfall can act as a significant roadblock to achieving meaningful impact as a team. When individuals focus too much on personal agendas, the broader sense of 'Meaning' and 'Impact' gets diluted. Even if team members individually find meaning in their work, a collective impact is hard to achieve when everyone is pulling in different (personal) directions.
In a way, the ideas of 'Meaning' and 'Impact' could serve as antidotes to the dysfunction of 'Inattention to Results.' When team members are aligned in their sense of purpose (Meaning) and understand the larger implications of their work (Impact), it naturally discourages selfish behaviors.
While the concepts from Google and Lencioni might not map directly onto each other, they do provide complementary perspectives. Understanding that 'Meaning' and 'Impact' can fuel team unity and effectiveness offers a flip side to Lencioni's caution against individualism sabotaging team outcomes.
Key Takeaways
Both Google's "Project Aristotle" and Patrick Lencioni's "Five Dysfunctions of a Team" offer us profound insights into the anatomy of effective teams. It's not about packing a room with experts; it's about creating an environment where diverse skills and personalities can collaborate effectively.
Building an effective team is an ongoing process—a symphony that adjusts its notes and tempo as it goes along but always aims for harmony. So the next time you find yourself wondering how to cultivate an effective team, remember: it begins with trust, is nurtured through clarity and communication and thrives on accountability plus a shared vision the team really commits to.