Imagine you have been invited to join one of two groups.
Team A is composed of people who are all exceptionally smart and successful. When you watch a video of this group working, you see professionals who wait until a topic arises in which they are expert, and then they speak at length, explaining what the group ought to do. When someone makes a side comment, the speaker stops, reminds everyone of the agenda and pushes the meeting back on track. This team is efficient. There is no idle chitchat or long debates. The meeting ends as scheduled and disbands so everyone can get back to their desks.
Team B is different. It’s evenly divided between successful executives and middle managers with few professional accomplishments. Teammates jump in and out of discussions. People interject and complete one another’s thoughts. When a team member abruptly changes the topic, the rest of the group follows him off the agenda. At the end of the meeting, the meeting doesn’t actually end: Everyone sits around to gossip and talk about their lives.
Which group would you rather join?
我想很多人会像我一样，第一反应，“当然 Team A 呀，高效、聚焦、能看出很强的执行力”。但按照文章的结论，长远看，Team B 可能会胜过 Team A。
因为研究者最终总结出对成为高效团队起关键性作用的是一种 group norms ，所有好团队都具备如下两个行为模式。
Norms are the traditions, behavioral standards and unwritten rules that govern how we function when we gather
Conversational turn-taking: On the good teams, members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a phenomenon the researchers referred to as ʻʻequality in distribution of conversational turn-taking.’’
Empathy: The good teams all had high ʻʻaverage 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.
The behaviors that create psychological safety — conversational turn‐taking and empathy — are part of the same unwritten rules we often turn to, as individuals, when we need to establish a bond. And those human bonds matter as much at work as anywhere else. In fact, they sometimes matter more.
文章的结论主要是基于 Google 内部的情况得出的，不一定适合所有企业，但当企业面临组织问题时，不妨作为一个思考视角。