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

91–100 of 115 posts

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

#91

Post by oxryly1 »

0xbear wrote: post #89

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 o…

Yeah, I'm guessing that if you're underperforming and you bring up how you feel psychologically unsafe you'll still get drummed out all the same. Which validates your unsafe feeling...

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

#92

Post by oxryly1 »

stoev wrote: post #24

I read through the HN comments of this very same article from almost two years ago wondering whether the message of the article would have been interpreted any differently. It is really surprising how much negativity there is in today's comments as opposed to the older topic. In 2016 people were calling this article enjoyable and even "Their favorite Google-related article of the year". I found suggestions on how to…

I think it's because team management in tech, despite acknowledgement of the results of these studies, hasn't actually integrated the results meaningfully, so we're not really better off 2 years later.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

jpatokal wrote: post #16
dinoleif wrote: post #6

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.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by KKKKkkkk1 »

0xbear wrote: post #89

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 o…

When you say GTFO, what is it exactly that you mean? Have you seen anyone fired or punished for underperformance?

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

#95

Post by sgt101 »

sgift wrote: post #31
jamra wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that working at google somehow impacts OP's ability to read the article and determine if the article cites data?

Point 2/ is the more interesting one - it's an accusation without any proof or hint, bordering on conspiracy theories.

You could read it that way, but it's something that I see in many different organisations when talking to people about how they do the data science-in'

The thing is that confirmation bias is real, and cost and time often preclude the use of strong systems to exclude it. Additionally The Tribe quickly develop narratives which then dominate funding and discussion. Phrases like "we've moved to execution".

Before finger wagging at dumb managers starts... consider Richard Feynman : https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

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

#96

Post by jamra »

Veratyr wrote: post #80
jamra wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that working at google somehow impacts OP's ability to read the article and determine if the article cites data?

He didn't say anything at all about OP's ability to read the article. "bold assertions" clearly refers to the 3 points he lists and you seem to be deliberately misreading. OP made some very bold claims about how Google works internally and unless he's a first-hand witness (Google employee), he really needs to provide some data of his own to back his assertions up.

I read the OPs comment as partly a comment on how Google has been releasing social commentary without releasing the raw studies specifically on gender and salary. They were being investigated for cheating women on salary.

I read the response from the Googler as an appeal to authority. If Google doesn’t release the study, they open themselves up for conjecture and skepticism.

To criticize OP for being inaccurate is fine, but absent any references, Google is making the same argument as the Googler.

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

#97

Post by golemotron »

andrewflnr wrote: post #90
golemotron wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So it's okay to discriminate against people with disabilities?

There are many areas where individual work shines. Legal research, accounting, auto repair. I think the same is true in software.

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

#98

Post by itronitron »

0xbear wrote: post #89

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 o…

How do any of us know what the other means by 'touchy-feely safe space' ? I am pretty confident I have never worked in such an organization although someone with a different work experience might disagree. Same goes for 'deliver or GTFO' << that pretty much defines every work environment even though they are all different.

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

#99

Post by itronitron »

emodendroket wrote: post #78
jack9 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the internet population increased the mean intelligence went down. Such an obvious and expected trend, I have to wonder if you're ok. Maybe you're so well-trained that you stop thinking when you jump to a conclusion.

That's only obvious if you take it as a given that the more money you have the smarter you are. Besides that, has there been a large change in the portion of the population with Internet access since 2016? And, besides that, the supposed "proof" the Internet has gotten stupider is becoming critical of Google.

I think both of the parent comments are intended to be sarcastic, but I could be wrong.

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

#100

Post by new299 »

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…

Interesting, I just tried a version of the readings the mind in the eyes test here:

http://socialintelligence.labinthewild.org/mite/

The test seemed somewhat biased to a certain social background however.

Post reply on HN