In 2011 Google released the results of Project Oxygen. Project Oxygen was Google’s effort to identify what makes a good manager. They put analysts onto large volumes of data from 10,000 sources to find what is at the center of the puzzle. Their results are:
- Be a good coach
- Empower your team and don’t micromanage
- Show interest in employees’ successes and well-being
- Be productive and results-oriented
- Be a good communicator and listen to your team
- Help your employees with career development
- Have a clear vision and strategy for the team
- Have key technical skills, to help advise the team
In the New York Times article summarizing these findings, a few things jumped out to me. Five of these items (numbers 1-3 plus 5-6) imply a compassionate, nurturing, and transformational leadership style. It is a rebuke to the notion that managers need to assert control, maintain discipline, and establish themselves in the hierarchy. However, managers are also not allowed to be weak or wishy-washy in terms of results and clear vision. While new managers step away from alpha-dog dominance to lead people in a “different” way, the alternate style cannot be deliberately passive. You still need to actively cultivate, intervene, and get the information out.
It’s some stellar research. For most of my work, I manipulate numbers. By contrast, this is an interpretation of large volumes of text and I know this is hard, specialized work. The findings are also contrary to many vested interests. When the client and the analysts themselves are great at technical analysis, and they declare that technical skills are not the most important thing… you know they’re not feathering their own nest.
However, I would like to highlight a couple of vulnerabilities about these findings, just to keep everyone on their toes. First, these findings are specific to the time and context, and findings can shift from one dataset to the next. It’s likely the list looks a little different if you don’t work at Google, and it may even change within Google over the years. Remember, this is not a representative sample of all organizations throughout time. It is good practice to give research findings the benefit of the doubt within context, and be skeptical or critical outside of that context.
For example, what if everyone at Google is really good at certain things and therefore those attributes don’t have a correlation with anything else? Examples might include having a university degree, getting access to information, receiving a decent salary, and vitamin D. You need a data sample where some people are bad at certain things to build out the lower-left corner of a scattergram. Otherwise a perfectly plausible driver of success will drop from statistical significance.
In the discussion about this project’s findings, people tend to go on about how technical skills are “dead last.” Not so fast. Wasn’t this a list of dozens of attributes, and they dropped all the attributes below number eight? As presented by the analysts, technical skills still make the list. Also, consider how you can blend technical skills with career development, empowering your team, and being productive.
I think it’s still the case that sleep, diet, exercise, and a good mood are the major drivers of focus, emotional intelligence, and energy. As individuals we need to take care of those home-front items in order to break into the next level of performance. However, if you botch the home front, you might not even get the job in the first place, never mind being good at it.
This brings us to the fact that they chose a fitting name for this project. What is the one thing you need above else to determine your success at work? Oxygen, of course. Lots and lots of oxygen. Good luck motivating staff without it!