Reading 14 article

• Article starts with a story of a student working with diffrent gorups
  • “It always struck Rozovsky as odd that her experiences with the two groups were dissimilar. Each was composed of people who were bright and outgoing.”
  • “By contrast, her case-competition team was always fun and easygoing. In some ways, the team’s members got along better as a group than as individual friends.”
• What made two groups that were composed of like minded individuals act completly diffrent from one another
• First we need to look into who is working in groups, what works for them, why it works for them, and then apply that to future team works.
  • “Five years ago, Google — one of the most public proselytizers of how studying workers can transform productivity — became focused on building the perfect team. In the last decade, the tech giant has spent untold millions of dollars measuring nearly every aspect of its employees’ lives.”
• “The company’s top executives long believed that building the best teams meant combining the best people”
• “Project Aristotle researchers concluded that understanding and influencing group norms were the keys to improving Google’s teams. “
• Concluded from research, when faced with going to a team with serious minded people, or a team with free flowing minded people, go with the later

• “The paradox, of course, is that Google’s intense data collection and number crunching have led it to the same conclusions that good managers have always known. In the best teams, members listen to one another and show sensitivity to feelings and needs.”

• What google Learned From Its Quest To Build the Perfect Team, Charles Duhigg (“https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html”) -Feb. 25, 2016