Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 115 posts

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#81

Post by specialist »

smaddox wrote: post #76
tluyben2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah! I think you are onto something there. I noticed it as well; Reddit is the worst offender as even serious and well founded comments are butchered and lighthearted/funny ones are upvoted in the 10000s. If you have better stuff to do, you will just think; fuck it then I don't answer. I would love to have good discussions with new peers online, but doing that in open court seems to attract the weirdos so I just go do…

I can't count the number of times recently that I've starting composing a comment on here, only to decide against posting it due to laziness and/or disinterest in the response. In fact, just a minute ago, while writing this comment, I decided not to post this comment, hit the back button and started scrolling on. But then a minute later realized what I was doing and decided to come back and comment. Maybe that's just…

I do this all the time. It's a form of rubber ducking.

Articulating myself, to myself, even if I don't share it, is often worthwhile. Why do I agree? Disagree? Is my observation novel? Enough to share?

Once I figure out what I'm thinking, do I care enough to share? Is the recipient worth my time? Do I really want to interrupt someone who's digging themselves into a hole?

Etc.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#82

Post by specialist »

eulo__ wrote: post #32
lsmarigo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by the same group of people Don't think it's the same group of people, it feels like intelligent and mentally healthy individuals have been opting to abstain from online discussions in general over the last few years in droves after realizing their time and energy and better spent elsewhere. Especially with the trend of comments being taken out of context to attack individuals employers/livelihood. That leaves the…

This has been my view for a while too. Most internet forums I use are a shadow of their former selves. When I first started browsing hn I was blown away with how smart and insightful the posts were. Ideas I had never thought of and quite a few I struggled to even comprehend. It's very rare to see that now days.

Everyone thinks this.

I was the hub of a PC-Relay network (the FidoNet era), a moderator on CompuServe, and very active on various game boards. It's never been any different.

Social circles have a life cycle, span.

When the current one sours, go find the next one. Or start a new one with some friends.

I think Clay Shirky's article about a group being its own worst enemy applies. Probably monkeyspheres too.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#83

Post by ozim »

indubitable wrote: post #11
jxi wrote: post #4

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.

Actually not, people free to express themselves was not major point. Major point was like from Dale Carnegie 'Don't criticise condemn or complain'. People do not like to be criticised and they work better if they feel no one is judging them.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#84

Post by Tempest1981 »

zbobet2012 wrote: post #75
gaius wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm under the impression that the cultural differences are largely in how much you let out, not in what the expression looks like when you do. Annoyance vs anger is all in how much you let out, no?

Uh no? I'm not angry when I'm annoyed... I'm annoyed.

In both cases, the key is that your team members can detect that something is not right, or could be improved, and respond.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#85

Post by soufron »

sctb wrote: post #71
soufron wrote: post #14

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.

We ban users for posting such vacuous flamebait as this, so would you please say something civil and substantive or not at all? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry, that was too quick. The idea was to insist on the contradiction of having piece praising Google HR practices while the company is known to lack diversity and allowing personal development.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#86

Post by soufron »

specialist wrote: post #82
eulo__ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been my view for a while too. Most internet forums I use are a shadow of their former selves. When I first started browsing hn I was blown away with how smart and insightful the posts were. Ideas I had never thought of and quite a few I struggled to even comprehend. It's very rare to see that now days.

Everyone thinks this. I was the hub of a PC-Relay network (the FidoNet era), a moderator on CompuServe, and very active on various game boards. It's never been any different. Social circles have a life cycle, span. When the current one sours, go find the next one. Or start a new one with some friends. I think Clay Shirky's article about a group being its own worst enemy applies. Probably monkeyspheres too.

The Life Cycle of Social Circles... you got a book title there ;)

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#87

Post by codewardenh »

Edit: can't reply at this time so had to edit in place - it would be good to get some discussion if others disagree with my experience, downvoting silently and avoiding conversation is a shame.

In time we will actually see that Google overly filters and selects and decides on the candidates it chooses, and that singular overarching, overbearing process guarantees they end up with a homogenised staff that all think and act the same. My three years there were a lesson in what to avoid when hiring. Difference of thought is seen as being against the hivemind. It is encouraged and tolerated only as much as to flush out all the individuals not on message. Sadly even with with xooglers, the Stockholm syndrome is strong and persists many external roles later. Friends don't let friends work for Google.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#88

Post by mseebach »

dEnigma wrote: post #67
tluyben2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah! I think you are onto something there. I noticed it as well; Reddit is the worst offender as even serious and well founded comments are butchered and lighthearted/funny ones are upvoted in the 10000s. If you have better stuff to do, you will just think; fuck it then I don't answer. I would love to have good discussions with new peers online, but doing that in open court seems to attract the weirdos so I just go do…

Personally I found Hacker News to be the best place for serious and thought-out comments. Research and critical thinking is rewarded (most of the time), while silly jokes (when not embedded in more substantial comments) and inflammatory content are frowned upon. It's actually a joy to read comments here, while I really dread —and often avoid— it on other sites. Apart from that, technical forums for specific topics, l…

I largely agree, but HN has some blind spots in this regard - most discussions about the workplace, open plans, working from home and especially interviewing almost invariably descends into angry rants and borderline conspiracy theory. My gut feeling is that this had been pretty constant, but the comparison of this thread with two years ago suggests otherwise.

I've also had a couple of brushes recently where what I considered reasonably calm and uncontroversial posts on a technical subject got alternating up and down votes for hours. I don't recall that happening before.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#89

Post by 0xbear »

Google is a very “sink or swim” place, and these well intentioned studies aren’t going to change that. I suspect they get funded in part for their positive PR aspect. Anecdotally, two of the three teams I worked in at Google were among the highest performing if you look at impact and results, and there was nothing “touchy-feely safe space” about them. It was pretty much “deliver or GTFO”, and how you feel about any of it didn’t matter one iota.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#90

Post by andrewflnr »

golemotron wrote: post #74
Radim wrote: post #13

TL;DR: "…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 i…

> 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. What isn't mentioned is that the 'Mind in the Eyes' test is used to ass…

Where do you think teamwork is not important? Such circumstances are vanishingly rare at best, mostly debatable, and will get rarer as humanity's ambition increasingly exceeds the capabilities of individuals. Meanwhile, having the ability to work with others will always be better than not.
Post reply on HN