# data[].attributes.body
I think when Google first started their research, they already had some idea of how they thought the research would turn out. I also think that that having interviews, questionnaires, and honest conversations early on while collecting data could have really improved their research process.

# data[].attributes.body
I really think Google needed to narrow their data collection once they really dug into the research. "180 teams from all over the country" is far too large of a data source to pull from in order to draw true conclusions. I think Google may have benefited from or could benefit from designing their research to include a control and experimental group in order to observe practices that may or may not facilitate a psychologically safe environment. I really think their research is just beginning at this stage and they could continue to dig especially given to the data-driven atmosphere in which they exist. Additionally, Google started out with bias in that they believed the success of the group must be based on the individuals that make up the group. The "conclusion" that the success of the group is based on the "psychological safety" of the group may have been influenced due to this bias additionally.

# data[].attributes.body
First I believe that Google was a pioneer in the depth of their research process. However, in the beginning, Google focused on quantitative date instead of qualitative data. In the first stages of the research, the company wanted to see how others socialized outside of work, did they share the same educational background, or did team members like each other. Only to find out that none of that data matters. "Researchers eventually concluded that what distinguished the good teams for the dysfunctional groups was how teammates treated one another". I also believe that the sample size was too large. Simplifying the research made for better results.

# data[].attributes.body
Being a highly established company I believe Google first began to take short cuts to identify what makes an effective team. Only after detailed analysis were they able to unfold their previous misconceptions. From there they truly began to look at this topic from a more neutral perspective. In the article it discusses the difficulty of finding way too many patterns, so in my eyes I see that as not having a narrow enough search to research their specific topic.

# data[].attributes.body
Google's initial research questions were more focused on the background of each individual members of the team, their backgrounds, and the demographic makeup of the teams. Though they looked into how the group socialized together, researchers didn't initially look at how each individual member felt being a part of the team. Once the research team realized that there were no discernible patterns in their data, they were able to revise their questions and return to their research. Their sample number was also incredibly high. They looked at 180 teams and thousands of employees, which may have been too large of a sample. Perhaps looking specifically at a Team A and a Team B through more of a case study lens would have brought quicker/better results.

# data[].attributes.body
Google focused first on the quantitative data of its group dynamics, for example studying, "How often did teammates socialize outside the office? Did they have the same hobbies? Were their educational backgrounds similar? Was it better for all teammates to be outgoing or for all of them to be shy? They drew diagrams showing which teams had overlapping memberships and which groups had exceeded their departments’ goals. They studied how long teams stuck together and if gender balance seemed to have an impact on a team’s success."  Their research did not progress until they also collected qualitative data about the feelings and psychological safety of employees, which revealed actionable patterns.  My suggestion would be to also consider qualitative data when first examining the problem of practice.

# data[].attributes.body
Google tells me what to do to improve, not the other way around.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Google could improve their research process a few ways. First, they focused mainly on quantitative data. Project Aristotle could collect more qualitative data from the Google employees themselves. They are working in teams and therefore could explain why they feel the teams is successful. It was when Project Aristotle opened their research up to the company that they made their biggest breakthrough. It just makes sense to talk to the employees within these teams.

# data[].attributes.body
There are many ways for Google to improve their research process.  For example, Google could benefit from Group Comparison Design as they could have independent and dependent variables which they compare in order to prove and justify their "perfect group." They only observed qualitative data within their own groups and did not do anything to influence the groups they observed. If Google looked at other "teams" they would be able to collect more authentic research. They did not do any prior research to support or negate their findings.

# data[].attributes.body
Google and Project Aristotle could improve their research through triangulation. Project Aristotle used quantitative data to determine which groups were successful and unsuccessful. They also collected data regarding group norms. These are just two of innumerable data points that could impact the group dynamics. Project Aristotle could also collect and analyze data in the form of interviews, personal attributes, personality questionnaires, learning styles and preferences, and the list could go on and on. Having more data to compare and draw conclusions will show stronger correlations between successful and unsuccessful teams and make it easier to identify the common thread.

# data[].attributes.body
There are several ways that Google could improve their research process. Based off of the reading on Project Aristotle it can be determined that the researchers need to further identify the impact and influence of a so-called "collective I.Q." Researchers, by possessing adequate knowledge on the collective I.Q. of various studied groups, would be better able to determine the merits and weaknesses of each case study. Furthermore, it was unfortunate that data-driven statistics isolated researchers from a satisfactory understanding of how psychological safety (as seen with the example of Matt Sakaguchi) impacts group-based performances.

# data[].attributes.body
Google could improve their research process through not only using quantitate data, but through the use of qualitative data by interviewing the google workers before any other stage in the research process.  It is almost ironic that Rozovsky didn’t begin with this methodology because of her experience at Yale.  Through, “reviewing half-century of academic studies looking at how teams worked”, Project Aristotle is only separating themselves from the problem at hand (Graham, 5).

Matt Sakaguchi demonstrates this idea perfectly because through his survey, he was able to tell the major disconnect within his group and then plan a course of action to fix it.  Instead of taking years to research other methodologies, he dove into the true problem of practice and provided the problem with a rational solution. Essentially, Project Aristotle should have begun in the Act portion of the research diagram, then persisted to plan, do, and watch to continue the cycle.

# data[].attributes.body
The main question is "How do team works together?" After studying hundreds of teams, they came to the conclusion that establishing group norms is what makes or breaks a team. Because of that, they asked themselves, "How can we find ways for people to communicate and show empathy?" The study can continue as to determining strategies for people to communicate effectively and how to show empathy. This does not just happen over night or with a one day training. Google can continue the study by putting into practice one strategy for each aspect. Google should allow for time with groups who implement the suggested strategy and analyze its effectiveness. From there, Google can rate how the groups are working together and being successful based on the way they communicate and show empathy. I also think Google can find other patterns and ways that groups can work together. While I think communication and empathy have a major role in an effective team, those are not the only two aspects of a good team. I would be interested in analyzing the teams that were not as successful and see if there were other areas they needed improvement or areas to build upon. If the leader is doing all the talking, should be there be some sort of distributive leadership approach? Is there trust between the leader and the team members? If the team does not feel like the leader is leading, should there be some sort of "training" for that leader in particular in how to organize their team. Google could take this further into examining other aspects of how the team can be successful.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that there are a few things that Google could do to improve their research process.  First, the use of group comparison design might be helpful.  If the researchers purposefully had a group that had their “success criteria” implemented and another group that did not, they may be able to more successfully test their theory of what makes an effective team.  Another way they could improve their research is by looking at teams not only within their company, but in other companies as well.  By looking at teams in other companies, they may find that other success criteria is more important depending on what the team is working on or who they work for.  Lastly, Google may consider further proving their data by not only sharing their findings with a group of 51,000 employees, but by mandating certain aspects of a team.  If they require teams to follow certain guidelines regarding psychological safety and group norms, they may be able to further test their findings.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Google could have improved their research by looking outside of the company in the first place.  For example a school system.  School systems have used the concept of teams some meeting with more success than others.  By looking at different school systems, they could have easily determined the best practices for working collaboratively.
Google  must also realize that there is not just one simple answer to their problem of practice.  There are so many variables that come into play when working with other people.  What works for one team, may not work for another team.  This is an ongoing process and just with any good action research, you must reflect and revise periodically to continue to make improvements.  There is no "magic bullet".
Relationships matter. We focus on relationships with our students in order to address our climate and culture in the school building and I think we can apply this same idea when it comes to building a cohesive team. As a department chair, I have learned the hard way that in order to work collaboratively and cohesively, we must understand each others strengths and weaknesses so we can compliment each other in the best possible way. Again, while things won't always be perfect, if you have strong working relationships and trust each other, teams are more likely to step outside of their comfort zones and take risks.

# data[].attributes.body
Google could improve their research process in a few ways. First, I feel as though looking at 51,000 employees is too many. I feel as though they should have started small and then worked their way to a larger group of people. I believe that the trend of " psychological safety " would have appeared in the small groups first. After this was pinpointed, the research could have branched out in order to see if the trend continued in larger groups. I feel this is where the research group size could have expanded. However, to begin with 51,000 people is ridiculous and no wonder it took 3 years to sift through data. I think the initial size of the group was too large. I also feel the second issue with Google's research process was that they were setting out to find a "fix" or a definite answer to their problem. I felt that they researchers were narrowed minded and not looking at the big picture. i think they wanted the answer to their problem of practice to be clear cut and dry.

I think Google could improve their research process by narrowing their initial research group. I also would think they could be more successful if they changed their mindset; instead of thinking of a definite solution they should be searching for multiple ways to improve their teams; they need to accept that there may not be one, single, simple solution.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Google came into their Project Aristotle with preconceived notions about what they would find.  They thought they would get all their information by looking within their own company and not using other sources.

They didn't do enough research on the topic until they struggled for hundreds of hours and spent millions of dollars.  They weren't getting seeing many results.  They were searching for an answer only within their own company rather that looking at other studies.  It wasn't until they looked at another study that they found there was a significant influence on effectiveness.  The article says:  " When Rozovsky and her Google colleagues encountered the concept of psychological safety in academic papers, it was as if everything suddenly fell into place."  They looked outside of their company and noticed a pattern.  They couldn't find a pattern when just looking within their own company.

Google's problem was simple...do more background research from other studies. When they did, "everything fell into place."