Optimizing Team Performance at Google

Case Study Analysis

Puvaneswaran A/L Muniandy

Synopsis: Optimizing Team Performance at Google

It is a well-documented fact that Google is one of the best places to work not only in the

United States, but the world. The culture at Google is far from the typical corporate climate you

tend to see in most organizations. By simply taking a glance at pictures of the Googleplex, you

instantly get the impression that these individuals have lots of fun and get paid to do so. The next

thought in my head is “How can I work for Google?”. They offer a range of facilities to their

employees from the first day of employment such as health benefits to sleeping pods. Who

wouldn’t want to work for a company like this?

By offering this level employee benefits and compensation, it’s a wonder that the

employees at Google are producing at stellar levels with little to no complaints. In the case study

“Optimizing Team performance at Google”, you will find an in-depth look into how Google

chooses a team, why these team members were chosen and the overall expected outcome and

success of the particular team. Google invested a large amount of human, technological and

financial resources into finding out what makes top performing teams so effective (Kiniki,

Kreitner 2018). They created Project Aristotle which included a companywide, data collection

from the observation of 180 teams. To their surprise, based on the observation, they were left

with questions about what they didn’t find versus what they actually discovered.

The aim of Project Aristotle was to find unique patterns in the most successful teams to

the less productive teams. They wanted to categorize the optimal team profile based on team

member classification. Unfortunately for them neither profile nor pattern were revealed. Google

researched every aspect of the team from age, gender and experience to whether they interacted

with each other socially both in and outside the workplace. They also believed that the teams

were comprised of the best individuals with the best characteristics, or they partnered people
with like interest, personality traits or even friends. The conclusion of this portion of the research

was that the “who” actually did not matter, neither did the instances where there were individuals

with identical personality traits and were apart of more than one group produced radically

different levels of effectiveness.

This portion of the research helped them understand the functionality of performance

differences in group norms but left they need to further discover operative norms with the same

components. Project Aristotle began to take a closer look at components such as unspoken rules,

how the ream member treated each other and communication strategies. They also discovered

that success begets success and poor performance begets poor performance no matter the task

assigned or the group the task is assigned to. This helped them conclude that norms were the key

but left them yet puzzled on the particular norms that boosted performance and the conflicting

norms of the teams that were equally successful.

The conclusion of Project Aristotle was that teams that functioned and succeeded at high

levels allowed its members to have equal input. Basically, everyone had a voice and they were

sensitive to what and when concerns arose based on both verbal and nonverbal cues. Now that

Project Aristotle discovered these key norms in the successful teams, the challenge they faced

was implementing these norms in every team at Google.

Problem #1

The first problem is Project Aristotle went this research project with defined ideas of the

expected outcome. After millions of dollars had been spent and an immense amount of data

collected, they discovered that they still did not have a conclusion on how to optimize team
performance. They were left going back to the drawing board and regrouping the components by

which they were analyzing the data.

Cause of Problem

The cause of the problem was assuming that the measure of success on a team was based on

commonalities alone. Also believing that the less successful groups’ effectiveness was based on

the same commonalities.

Recommendation # 1

I would re-evaluate the process by which I would do the evaluations. During data collection and

analysis I would have Project Aristotle analyze and become involved in the group evaluations.

This would have given a more hand on approach versus waiting until the end of each segment of

research. I would have also done a test study on a smaller number of groups before spending

millions of dollars.

Problem #2

The next problem Project Aristotle faced was unique patterns in the most successful teams to the

less productive teams. They wanted to categorize the optimal team profile based on team

member characterization. Unfortunately for them neither profile nor pattern were discovered.

Cause of Problem

Assuming that the teams were comprised of the best individuals with the best characteristics, or

they partnered people with like interest, personality traits or even friends. The conclusion of this

portion of the research was that the “who” actually did not matter, neither did the instances
where there were individuals with identical personality traits and were apart of more than one

group produced radically different levels of effectiveness.

Recommendation #2

I would re-evaluate the process by which I would do the evaluations. During data collection and

analysis I would have Project Aristotle analyze and become involved in the group evaluations.

This would have given a more hand on approach versus waiting until the end of each segment of

research. I would have also done a test study on a smaller number of groups before spending

millions of dollars.

Problem #3

The case 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

Once 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.

Cited:
Kinicki, Angelo and Robert Kreitner. Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills, and Best
Practices (with Connect access). 2nd Ed.. New York: McGrawHill, 2018.