

The New Science of Building Great Teams - signa11
https://hbr.org/2012/04/the-new-science-of-building-great-teams

======
mrbird
I love seeing quantitative attempts to study social dynamics, even if it's
tricky to extrapolate them to other environments. There definitely seems to be
a growing research consensus that people with emotional intelligence--
sensitive to others, good at team-building--are more important than previously
thought, especially relative to, say, technical skill.

One thing I'm very curious about, with respect to this study's findings, is
the relationship with similarly-convincing research about the important of
private offices and minimizing distractions. The two aren't totally exclusive,
of course, but there is at least some tension:

 _For example, we now know that 35% of the variation in a team’s performance
can be accounted for simply by the number of face-to-face exchanges among team
members. We know as well that the “right” number of exchanges in a team is as
many as dozens per working hour, but that going beyond that ideal number
decreases performance._

That style of interaction does sound a lot easier to facilitate in an open-
plan office.

~~~
borgia
>That style of interaction does sound a lot easier to facilitate in an open-
plan office.

What about something in the middle i.e. small teams working in offices by
themselves, who've sufficient privacy from the grand noise of a totally open-
plan office yet can communicate/chat/etc. amongst themselves very freely?

~~~
kenrikm
Private Offices with open doors and a communal meeting place in the middle
seem to be rather effective in my experience. You hear just enough of what's
going on that you can join in if needed but also separated enough that a pair
of headphones can put you in silence.

------
nickthemagicman
Haha, Arguably all of the greatest inventions/discoveries of mankind were made
by individuals.

Teams are good for some things but there's a lot to be said for quiet time to
introspect.

------
projectileboy
I think this research is interesting and valuable, but it seems to
oversimplify. If I intentionally hired a group of goofballs who loved each
other's company, would I really expect outstanding results?

