Google’s Project Aristotle: What Makes Teams Thrive?
In 2012, Google’s People Analytics devision embarked on a research project to uncover why some teams struggle while others excel.
Led by Abeer Dubey and run by Julia Rozovsky, Project Aristotle offered significant new insights into team dynamics at Google.
Curious about how their findings related to my own experience leading tech teams in startups and scaleups, I wondered: Are these insights still relevant today? Can they guide us in building better teams?
The Research: Searching for the Formula of Team Success
Google’s study set out to identify the factors that distinguish high-performing teams. Over two years, the researchers analysed over 180 teams, combining qualitative and quantitative data to examine behavioural patterns, team cultures, and outcomes.1
At first, they hypothesised that team makeup would be key. They explored factors like:
Colocation of teammates (sitting together in the same office)
Consensus-driven decision making
Extroversion of team members
Individual performance of team members
Workload size
Seniority
Team size
Tenure
Surprisingly, none of these factors showed significant patterns that explained why some teams thrived and others faltered.
The Breakthrough: Group Norms Drive Success
Facing this unexpected result, the researchers turned to studies by psychologists and sociologists on group norms—the unwritten rules and behavioural standards that develop organically within teams.
Reanalysing their data through this lens revealed a breakthrough: Group norms strongly correlate with team effectiveness. It wasn’t individual talent or skills that determined success—it was the quality of the team’s interactions.
Norms, whether explicit or unspoken, influence behaviour and often override individual tendencies to align with the group’s expectations.
Instead of individual talent or skills, the quality of interactions mattered most.
To make these findings actionable, Google developed a practical framework highlighting the dynamics that drive team success.
The Five Key Dynamics of Effective Teams
The findings of Project Aristotle highlighted five core elements critical to team success. These dynamics—ordered by significance—offer a roadmap for leaders looking to foster cohesion and drive outcomes.
(1) Psychological Safety
Research Insights
Psychological safety emerged as the cornerstone of Google’s research into effective teamwork. When team members feel safe to take risks and voice ideas without fear of judgment, they contribute more openly and creatively.
Leaders can cultivate this safety by promoting inclusivity, active listening, and responding constructively to feedback.
My Reflection
Most leaders know they should create psychological safety, but many lack the skills—or the safe environment (ironically)—to practice it effectively.
The biggest challenge is the vulnerability required. Leaders need to be present in meetings—listening, reflecting, and sharing perspectives without pushing personal agendas. Admitting “I don’t know” or asking for help can feel uncomfortable, but it’s essential for building trust.
To foster psychological safety, leaders may need to unlearn habits rooted in competitiveness and comparison.
(2) Dependability
Research Insights
Successful teams establish a culture of reliability. Each member must trust others to deliver high-quality work on time. Clear roles, accountability mechanisms, and trust-building exercises strengthen dependability.
My Reflection
Dependability often emerges naturally in a psychologically safe environment. Teams that value collaboration recognise that success and struggle are shared experiences.
The challenge lies in understanding what each team member can reliably contribute. Assuming, “I’m good at this, so they should be too,” or expecting expertise based solely on someone’s role, leads to frustration.
Teams must cultivate curiosity about each other’s skills, interests, and capabilities. Leaders can guide these conversations initially, but members should take ownership of building mutual understanding.
(3) Structure and Clarity
Research Insights
Teams thrive on well-defined roles, responsibilities, and goals. Uncertainty breeds confusion, while clear expectations ensure alignment and reduce friction. Regular check-ins and tools like OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) help enforce structure.
My Reflection
Leaders have a huge impact here. When I think about clarity, I think about enabling constraints—boundaries that define a team’s purpose, ways of working, and measures of success.
The challenge is balancing constraint with autonomy. Teams without ownership feel demotivated, while overly autonomous teams without context can lack focus. Both scenarios lead to poor productivity.
Leaders must share their expectations and contextual knowledge while encouraging team members to articulate their needs and observations. This fosters a collaborative approach to clarity.
(4) Meaning
Research Insights
Effective teams find a sense of purpose in their work. Whether it’s achieving personal growth, contributing to society, or advancing organisational goals, team members are more engaged when their efforts align with their values. Leaders should emphasise the impact of tasks on larger objectives.
My Reflection
For most teams, the meaning of their work ties directly to the company’s purpose. While this can feel constraining, specific projects with clear customer or societal impact can boost morale.
Tech leaders face unique challenges here. Developers often find meaning in mastering new technologies. When teams are tasked with maintaining legacy systems, frustration can arise.
Setting boundaries helps: Teams need clarity on their purpose and business goals. If these don’t overlap with personal learning goals, leaders should acknowledge this tension and manage expectations.
(5) Impact
Research Insights
Teams are most motivated when they see tangible results from their work. Sharing success stories, metrics, and feedback reinforces the value of their contributions.
My Reflection
Tech teams are often too removed from business outcomes or customer feedback. This disconnect reduces motivation.
Leaders need to communicate context: Why was this strategy chosen? What assumptions underlie it? Sharing insights like “This is based on data” or “This is an educated guess, and we’ll validate it by doing X” builds trust and understanding.
Teams also need ways to measure their work’s impact. When they can see how their efforts contribute to business and customer outcomes, they can experiment and adjust as needed.
Final Thoughts: Driving Healthy Team Productivity
Google’s Project Aristotle is as relevant today as it was over a decade ago. In an era of increasing complexity, creative teamwork is critical for innovation and productivity. Improving team interactions unlocks their full potential.
However, many teams struggle to initiate the changes needed to thrive. Delivery deadlines often take precedence over team development, which can have long-term negative effects on productivity.
To build better teams, leaders should focus on two key areas:
Developing psychological strength.
Connecting team efforts to clear business and customer impact.
By balancing clear boundaries and expectations with ownership and continuous learning, leaders can foster teams that are both resilient and effective.
For more detail on the people involved and their research journey, read this New York Times article.