When it comes to collecting and analyzing data to make new and better products, few companies can do it as well as Google. Recently, the company decided to apply its expertise in information technology to answer an important question: since it is people who make the difference between a good company and a great company, can a data analysis approach be used to improve Google's HR management function? If this approach worked for Billy Beane, it might as well work on Google, right? Remember from Chapter 2 that Beane, manager of the Oakland Athletics, significantly improved player, and team performance with the use of data and statistics. (Actor Brad Pitt embodied Beane's efforts in the movie Moneyball.) One of the things Google wanted to know was whether it could "make" better bosses. Because? Because despite the large number of perks that Google workers receive, their employee turnover rate is surprisingly high. It has been said that the main reason people leave their jobs is because of their bosses. Could this be true on Google? And if so, could good bosses be identified and used to improve the performance of not-so-good bosses? Google researchers wanted to find out and answer these questions using data from their own organization to determine precisely what would work for Google and not for other organizations. To answer the questions, a team of more than 25 researchers and company scientists began studying company supervisors using their performance reviews, employee surveys, interviews, and observations of their behaviors. More than 10,000 data were collected on 100 variables to determine the level of performance of supervisors. Initially, not all supervisors were excited to be evaluated by their subordinates or to be put "under the microscope." Therefore, this effort required a bit of “sales work” from top management. The fact that the researchers could point to important differences between the overall ratings that employees gave to different managers and that some teams performed much better than others helped fuel the fire to get "Project Oxygen" off the ground. (A good boss is supposed to give you room to breathe, while a bad one can suck your life out, hence the name of the project.) Upon completion, Project Oxygen generated a wealth of information, some of which confirmed the conventional wisdom and some not. The teams with the best-rated managers performed better, their members were happier, and they stayed with the company longer. Your managers had more of an impact on how employees feel about their work than any other factor. However, the result also showed that the best bosses weren't the ones with the most technical expertise, as Google expected. Instead, they were level-headed people, helping their teams think to solve problems rather than micromanaging them, and caring about people. Google used the information it collected to implement training and coaching programs to rapidly improve the quality of most of its worst-performing managers. Specifically, Google identified eight behaviors that you must execute if you want to be a good boss, at least in this company. 1. Be a good coach. 2. Empower your team and don't micromanage it. 3. Express interest in the success of the team members and in their personal well-being. 4. Be productive and results oriented. 5. Be a good communicator and listen to your team. 6. Help your employees' career development. 7. Have a clear strategy and vision for the team. 8. Have the technical skills to advise the team.
Questions
1. Why was having a greater amount of technical expertise not a key aspect to be a good supervisor at Google?
2. Are you surprised by Google's research on the performance of its managers? Why?