[How About This Book] True Feelings Rising by the Campfire... Startup Success Depends on People

Avoiding Healthy Conflict Is Risky
High-Performing Teams
Show Flexibility Toward Others' Opinions
The Leader's Role in Asking for Input First Is Crucial
A 'Workshop' for Honest Conversations
Enables Self-Reflection and Communication with Colleagues

The two authors responsible for Google's startup nurturing program, 'Google for Startups Accelerator,' identify 'human relationships' as the key factor determining the success or failure of startups. They emphasize that human relationships are more important than commonly considered success factors such as technological capability, market fit, and financial resources. In fact, according to research by Harvard Business School and McKinsey, 65% of startups failed due to human relationship issues like team composition.

[How About This Book] True Feelings Rising by the Campfire... Startup Success Depends on People

DALL-E3

One of the common traps startups fall into is the 'trap of speed.' The authors describe this as "prioritizing short-term thinking and undervaluing or ignoring important roles within the team." The approach of achieving results in the shortest time with minimal resources places excessive burdens on a small number of people and risks creating a team culture that relies on 'heroic acts.' "Heroic acts create a structure dependent on one person. The problem is that this structure is bound to collapse soon. When one person's 'over-functioning' continues for a long time, the rest of the team members respond with 'under-functioning.' They become passive and avoid taking on tasks or responsibilities."

Another risk factor is the 'trap of the inner circle.' Teams centered on trust-based friendships enable quick decision-making and smooth distribution of risks and rewards. However, analysis of thousands of startups showed that teams operating around an inner circle tended to avoid healthy conflicts and differences of opinion. They exhibited excessive optimism with attitudes like "We will be the first to succeed," underestimated negative feedback, hesitated to express opposing views, and were prone to the illusion of unanimous agreement.

According to experiments conducted by the authors, individuals often had better problem-solving abilities than teams. When teams of 5 to 6 members solved problems, the probability that the team's score was higher than individual scores was less than 50%. The likelihood of the 'synergy effect' of collective intelligence was only 20%. Peter Senge, a systems scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), analyzed that "a team's collective intelligence is generally lower than the average intelligence of its members."

The reason is simple. The logic of 'the loudest voice wins' applies. Even those who individually knew better answers bent their opinions in front of strong assertions, and ultimately, incorrect conclusions were adopted by majority vote. One experiment participant said, "I doubted my own thoughts because I didn't know if I was right. Meanwhile, other team members strongly asserted their ideas. So, I changed my mind and followed the team's opinion."

So, what is the solution? The authors suggest having a 'strong opinion held weakly.' In other words, it is necessary to assert one's opinion strongly while remaining flexible and open to others' views. In fact, groups with excellent team performance engaged in active debates based on mutual understanding. Teamwork functioned properly when the condition of "being able to explain the other's perspective to their satisfaction" was met.

Additionally, the authors emphasize the importance of the leader's role. According to Google's research, only 3% of leaders answered that "encouraging dissenting opinions is important." In contrast, 45% of employees agreed, showing a significant gap. However, it is not easy for employees to speak up first.

Research from UC Berkeley found that simply changing the leader's way of expression increased the amount of shared information by four times. A representative example is Spotify's 'Discover Weekly.' In 2015, an employee proposed a personalized playlist service, but the then-CEO was skeptical. Spotify founder Daniel Ek recalls, "Honestly, I had no idea about the benefits of that feature. So, I asked two or three times if we were really going to do it and why we should spend so much time and energy on it." However, accepting the employee's opinion led to Discover Weekly becoming a successful service.

Another solution proposed by the authors is 'Modakbul Time.' This is a workshop-like time where members freely share their complaints and difficulties, and it is also the title of the book. Like sitting around a campfire, it means stepping away from real-world pressures to have honest communication. In this process, it is important to face reality through self-reflection and confirm team members' motivations, work styles, and expectations.