11–20 of 115 posts
That’s a really long read. Can anyone summarize?
That’s a really long read. Can anyone summarize?
"…the good teams all had high ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ — a fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues. One of the easiest ways to gauge social sensitivity is to show someone photos of people’s eyes and ask him or her to describe what the people are thinking or feeling — an exam known as the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. People on the more successful teams in Woolley’s experiment scored above average on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. They seemed to know when someone was feeling upset or left out. People on the ineffective teams, in contrast, scored below average. They seemed, as a group, to have less sensitivity toward their colleagues."
"When Rozovsky and her Google colleagues encountered the concept of psychological safety in academic papers, it was as if everything suddenly fell into place. One engineer, for instance, had told researchers that his team leader was ‘‘direct and straightforward, which creates a safe space for you to take risks.’’ That team, researchers estimated, was among Google’s accomplished groups. By contrast, another engineer had told the researchers that his ‘‘team leader has poor emotional control.’’ He added: ‘‘He panics over small issues and keeps trying to grab control. I would hate to be driving with him being in the passenger seat, because he would keep trying to grab the steering wheel and crash the car.’’ That team, researchers presumed, did not perform well."
The weasel-wording around "researchers estimated' and "researchers presumed" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Though that may be just the NYT article, not the study itself (what's the actual data?).
I can only imagine this well-intentioned research was the seed of some internal directives, which eventually turned into a cargo-cult dogma, leading to things like the James Damore fiasco. The road to hell paved with good intentions and all that.
Lol.
The New York Times also started to write clickbait head lines. That's exactly what the world needs: more clickbait. The article is just another glorification of data for nothing but attention and branding of the religion called Google. Gamification of the work place where it is tracked with how many people you have had lunch sounds like a dystopia straight from Black Mirror. It appears that Google's employee force se…
As an example, just yesterday I heard about Donna Brazile's admissions that Hillary rigged the primary election by controlling even who the DNC got to hire and how she essentially laundered huge donations to her campaign through the DNC. Sounds like the story of the day, considering Donna Brazile was the former DNC chair, right? (even if only for a few months)
But if I searched for "Donna Brazile New York Times" on Google, all I get to see is a story on how Hillary Clinton won an award and "shed tears" in the same day.
NYT's political bias is palpable. That's why so many people believe Trump when he says mainstream media is "fake news". No, I'm not a Trump supporter at all, just pointing out that this sort of blatant bias in mainstream media makes it so much easier to believe even someone like Trump when he points it out, because it's ringing true to people.
Ridiculous puff piece & PR job. There is not a single piece of data in that entire article. The way this works is: 1/ Google crunches some data 2/ The company leadership looks at that data, twists it to leave out "inconvenient" facts, and tells whatever narratives they want to tell (internally and to the NYT) 3/ No data or any empirical results are ever released (even internally)
FTR, I'm a manager at Google. I don't feel qualified to comment on the research or the specifics of this article, but I can assure you Google takes building effective teams pretty darn seriously.
Well they learned the perfect team should be composed of the best breed of white males, between 25 and 45, and that they should be sufficient, arrogant, and leaning to the far-right when possible - but using progressive rhetorics. Lol.
That’s a really long read. Can anyone summarize?
Google wanted to optimize teams. Couldn't find any patterns that show why one team does better than another. Saw psychology report indicating that having people free to express themselves is important for team performance, as if this is a major revelation. Rest of the paper focuses on a single anecdote that is supposed to show this.
I find that a stretch. Even more so as the paper makes 0 effort to falsify its own conclusion. E.g. if this is true then you should be able to find a team where each person is a highly skilled shopping trip planner (and how that was measured was not defined in the paper) against a team full of people who are less skilled. But some other trait, presumably some sort of empathy, makes the individually weaker team perform better. I would expect in nearly all cases the team of better performers at the given skill will outperform the team of weaker performers at the given skill. What she arguably showed is that whatever measure she was using for cognitive capability does not strongly correlate against skill at things like planning shopping trips, whereas the test she used for the 'other' trait, the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test, does.
[1] - http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ab/Salon/research/Woolley_et_al_Scien...
The New York Times also started to write clickbait head lines. That's exactly what the world needs: more clickbait. The article is just another glorification of data for nothing but attention and branding of the religion called Google. Gamification of the work place where it is tracked with how many people you have had lunch sounds like a dystopia straight from Black Mirror. It appears that Google's employee force se…
I've stopped believing in NYT's "integrity" since a few years ago. It's even worse for political news. As an example, just yesterday I heard about Donna Brazile's admissions that Hillary rigged the primary election by controlling even who the DNC got to hire and how she essentially laundered huge donations to her campaign through the DNC. Sounds like the story of the day, considering Donna Brazile was the former DNC…
From my observation, they are giving platform to just one side of the debate in many issues, e.g. title IX legislation, where they are portraying a move that is supported by a number of reputed law professors[0] as another Trump goverment vs the victims argument:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/opinion/weakening-college...
Yes, it's an opinion article, but by choosing to give platform to just one side of the opinion, they are making a political choice.
[0] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/9/1/law-faculty-title...
Ridiculous puff piece & PR job. There is not a single piece of data in that entire article. The way this works is: 1/ Google crunches some data 2/ The company leadership looks at that data, twists it to leave out "inconvenient" facts, and tells whatever narratives they want to tell (internally and to the NYT) 3/ No data or any empirical results are ever released (even internally)
Do you work at Google, or what are you basing these bold assertions on? FTR, I'm a manager at Google. I don't feel qualified to comment on the research or the specifics of this article, but I can assure you Google takes building effective teams pretty darn seriously.