Google's Three-Thirds HR Team - Case Study Example

Google's “Three-Thirds” HR Team Table of Contents 1. What Needs to Be Done to Convert Google HR into a Team 3 2. On Whether Google's Team Should Have Been Told Ahead of Time on Competencies of the Team, How It Should Have Been Accomplished 5 3. Importance of Trust in Teams That Are Cross-functional. Building Trust in Teams with Members Having Backgrounds That Are Diverse 6 4. Instrumental vs. Social-Emotional Cohesiveness in Cross-Functional Teams 7 5. Leadership, Management, Team Building in Cross-Functional Teams- Advice 8 References 10 1. What Needs to Be Done to Convert Google HR into a Team There are essentially three different groups within Google, each having its own distinct personalities and characteristics, and each to be considered as individual silos until the whole organization is turned into a team. The third group of thirds is made up of the savants who have deep analytical expertise in different fields, which are all brought to bear on different aspects of human resources management. People's Operations is, according to Bock, something that benefits from the work of the rigorously analytical and scientifically oriented third group within the HR function. This third group is complemented by two other groups of thirds, one third having the traditional HR skills and experience with expertise in traditional human resources, relationships with clients, benefits, and the law, among other things. The next third, meanwhile, is staffed by non-savant problem solvers who have no HR background whatsoever, and whose line of work prior included stints in the consulting firms or stints in other functions within Google, including sales, as well as more traditional engineering. Being incorporated into the different functional units within Google, these third of the People Operations Group takes the role of spearheading problem solving initiatives within the context of the departments or functions. The emphasis here is not the kind of work that is done by the group of analytical third with doctorates, but on the solving of problems as they are intimately linked with the functional groups within Google (Case Facts). Bock notes that there is encouragement for the sharing of know-how/knowledge as well as for the groups to interact, but this hardly qualifies as making the diverse thirds into a team. Table 11-1 tells us that there are indicators for when a true team exists, and those must be followed and should serve as guide in determining whether a team exists or not. In Table 11-1 a team is a team when there is the sense that leadership has become an activity that is shared within the group. There is a shift towards joint individual and group accountability. There is the development of a group mission/purpose. Problem-solving becomes embedded into the DNA of what the group does, and not something done on the side. Teams measure themselves by their overall outcomes relative to goals. Given this, the People's Operations group would do well to craft its own mission statement, for one. Group goal setting should be done with the buy-in of everyone concerned. The group's compensation can also be tied to the performance of the whole group, with each of the thirds working together to accomplish this. Individual goals and evaluations are to be tied to the performance of the whole group. Problem-solving is to be done with the use of teams whose members are culled from different thirds within the human resources group. The general idea is that mere sharing of knowledge and mere facilitation of the interaction of the different thirds will not make HR a true team. It is to be noted that each of the thirds have their own set tasks and competencies, so that it can be said that each of the thirds is a team, but not the whole of the HR department. Without the essential elements that were outlined in Table 11-1, then it cannot be said that the HR function taken together is a true team. The sharing of the goals and the measurement of individual performance versus the accomplishment of group goals is a step in the creation of the true team, and so is the exercise of the whole HR function setting goals and mission statements, for instance, collectively. This can be done in team-building settings, with the whole function sitting together to come up with the goal and mission statement for the whole of the HR department (McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2013, slide 11-5). 2. On Whether Google's Team Should Have Been Told Ahead of Time on Competencies of the Team, How It Should Have Been Accomplished There is merit in the team members being told of an ideal working framework to effect the formation of teams within the HR group, and to make the whole of the HR group into a team in essence. There are proven teamwork competencies as discussed in the Table, which no doubt has elements that are familiar to the third of the HR group tasked with the deep theoretical analysis work in different areas of the HR function. On the other hand, such would have not resulted in the kind of internalization that is necessary to make the prescriptions work. To accomplish the internalization what needed to have been done was for the different thirds within the HR function to be conscious of how they did their work prior to the intervention, through the conscious mapping of the way they work and they way their work is evaluated and assessed versus what metrics. These are then to be considered versus the kinds of teamwork competencies that are presented in the chapter. The idea is that this ought to bring to the surface the gaps between what is being done now and what the whole HR function has now in terms of competencies in teamwork, versus what the ideal scenario is in terms of the same. This knowledge of the gaps in the HR group competencies in teamwork would serve all of the members of the HR function and the different thirds into working their way to acquiring the competencies and to addressing the gaps The idea is that such an exercise in gaps assessment would not be as effective if the team members were told before hand of the competencies in teamwork that are stipulated in the table. This is because there needs to be a conscious awareness on the part of the members of what they have versus what they should ideally have in the area of the necessary teamwork competencies before they can change and improve (McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2013). 3. Importance of Trust in Teams That Are Cross-functional. Building Trust in Teams with Members Having Backgrounds That Are Diverse In all human relationships and interactions a certain level of trust is fundamental to furthering communication, working together, and sharing goals. Trust therefore is something very basic, without which people will not form teams at all, or even interact with each other in the most fundamental ways. When people don't trust each other they will not work together, form societies, live in close proximity. Trust is something very basic to society therefore. The book describes aspects of team, including how viable teams are. Trust is something very necessary and basic to the viability of teams, which is simply how satisfied and how willing members are with continuing on in team and group arrangements moving forward. One cannot have a team of any kind if members do not trust each other fundamentally. There are many ways to build trust quickly in cross-functional teams, and one of them is to tie individual success with group success, and to open lines of communication among the team members. The latter may require constant team-building efforts, and making them work together on a regular basis. The literature tells us of other crucial ingredients for fostering trust quickly, including making good first impressions and recruiting people who are trustworthy. Another is to instill the ability to collaborate as an important attribute of members of the HR function, to facilitate the building of trust. The literature also notes that the leadership of the HR function can either instill trust or destroy the formation of trust relationships among members of cross-functional teams. To quickly build trust, leaders of teams and of the HR function itself must be deemed as trustworthy, and must act in ways that inspire confidence and trust (Webber, 2002; Zolin et al., 2004; Jassawalla and Sashittal, 1999; McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2013). 4. Instrumental vs. Social-Emotional Cohesiveness in Cross-Functional Teams The literature notes that both instrumental and social-emotional cohesiveness are important to teams. Aspects of team creation and team building relating to the formation of trust, for instance, can be said to have heavy aspects of social and emotional cohesion attached to them. On the other hand, in terms of the formation of the different thirds, it is clear that the emphasis is on competencies in different kinds of work within the organization, so that cohesiveness among the analytical savants can be construed as being instrumental or capabilities based more than they are based on social and emotional cohesiveness. It can be said further that instrumental cohesiveness, based on competence and proven and acquired skills, facilitates the formation of social and emotional cohesiveness, the latter developing from shared goals, respect for each other 's competence, and similar other dynamics and rationales. It is clear therefore that to break the barriers, perceived or real among the three thirds in the Google HR function, what is needed is both social-emotional cohesiveness and instrumental cohesiveness. There are problems of course with relying on just one or the other. For instance, there is the tendency for teams to devolve into groupthink when there is an over-emphasis on social-emotional cohesiveness. Within Google, the organization o the HR function into thirds puts heavy emphasis on instrumental cohesiveness, and cross-functional teams should strive for some balance between the two forms of cohesiveness in order to be successful at team building (Bernthal and Insko, 1993; Webber, 2002; Zolin et al., 2004; Jassawalla and Sashittal, 1999; McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2013) 5. Leadership, Management, Team Building in Cross-Functional Teams- Advice From the preceding discussion it is clear that team building is affected by the quality of the leadership at the top. If top leadership exhibits behaviors that foster the development of trust, if leaders at the top are trustworthy, then there is a chance for a culture of trust to develop. Trustworthiness extends to making sure that the leaders and members chosen for the different thirds are trustworthy, are competent, and are able to work well with the other members of the team. These go a long way towards creating very good, highly functional and productive cross-functional teams, as envisioned for the HR function. The short of it is that management and the leadership at the top of the organization, all the way beyond HR to the top management at Google, can make or break teams within Google. The second piece of advice is with regard to striking the proper balance between social and emotional connection on the one hand and staffing the teams with competent, highly functional group members. Both competence and social bonds are necessary to forming great teams, and both feed off each other in a balance (Bernthal and Insko, 1993; Webber, 2002; Zolin et al., 2004; Jassawalla and Sashittal, 1999; McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2013). References Bernthal, P. and Insko, C. (1993). Cohesiveness without Groupthink. Group Organization Management 18 (1). Retrieved from http://gom.sagepub.com/content/18/1/66.abstract Jassawalla, A. and Sashittal, H. (1999). Building collaborative cross-functional new product teams. Academy of Management Executive 13 (3). Retrieved from http://www.drkresearch.org/Clients/IInovation/collaborative_cf_teams.pdf McGraw-Hill Higher Education (2013). Chapter 11 PowerPoint. Organizational Behavior 10/e Kreitner Kinicki.Student Edition Online Learning Center. Retrieved from http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0078029368/student_view0/chapter11/student_powerpoints.html Webber, S. (2002). Leadership and trust facilitating cross-functional team success. The Journal of Management Development 21 (3/4). Retrieved from http://teaching.fec.anu.edu.au/BUSN8061/Simsarian%20Webber%20-%20Leadership%20and%20Trust%20in%20Teams.pdf Zolin, R. et al. (2004). Interpersonal trust in cross-functional, geographically distributed work: a longitudinal study. Information and Organization 14. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/WTO/cgi-bin/uploads/ZolinEtAl2004.pdf Read More