More than most companies, Google operates based on data. So in 2008 when they wanted to identify what makes great managers great, they began analyzing performance reviews, feedback surveys and nominations for top-manager awards. They correlated phrases, words, praise and complaints. This became Project Oxygen, which resulted in 8 behaviors that are characteristic of great managers as identified by employees and teams' performance.
Google, like so many high-tech companies, had previously assumed that the best engineers make the best managers. This was partly due to their bias that management doesn't matter. In fact, that's what Project Oxygen originally set out to prove.
But that's not what the Project Oxygen data showed. From employee feedback and Google's ongoing assessment over the years, great management is highly correlated with great outcomes. And it turns out that what the data showed was that management does indeed matter.
Google understood that employee turnover was a challenge that they, like every other company in Silicon Valley, experienced to their detriment. And one of the top reasons employees leave is because they don't like or don't get along with their manager.
But good management provides benefits over and about turnover reduction. Software development is a team sport, and to facilitate successful development outcomes requires more than being able to code in your sleep. In fact, in Project Oxygen's initial assessment of 8 great management behaviors, technical prowess came in dead last. That's not what employees want or need from their manager. What was the top behavior Google employees wanted from a manager? To be a good coach.
Now, 10 years after Project Oxygen was initiated, Google has updated their list from 8 to 10 items, and tweaked some of the originals. Here's their current list of Google Manager Behaviors:
Coincidently, about a decade ago I also put my management thoughts into a blog post. I felt that much of the literature was focused on tactical skills and practices, and while laudable those skills led to good rather than great outcomes. The difference, in my view, is one of motivation: How does a manager inspire people to "be extraordinary"? It's one thing to get a product out the door; it's quite another to achieve excellence or to disrupt your space. In my experience, that requires more than just normal effort. It will never happen unless the team has the attitude that they will do everything they can to be successful.
The key skill required to get from good to great, in my option, is something I'll call, for lack of a better term, charisma. By that I mean the ability to inspire and persuade. Or another way to look at it is this: Every company function, starting with sales but not excluding engineering, requires the ability to close. To get the sale. To persuade stakeholders of your technical strategy. To secure new investors. To close a recruit with multiple offers. To lobby for additional headcount. To sell a customer or prospect on your solution's merits. To negotiate a better price with a major vendor. To convince a group of skeptical engineers that the current project matters in ways that they can relate to. In other words, to perform many common functions in a dynamic company environment.
Charisma is not a perfect term, as it sometimes implies shallowness. Most engineers have a strong BS sense, and anything said that's insincere or not supported by data will lead to a lack of respect and a downward spiral of morale.
Google's item 5, above, probably comes closest to capturing this. Being a good communicator is essential and all to often lacking. And anything like charisma should also include what Google references in item 3, especially concern for success and well-being.
No matter how high our tech is, most companies consist of people working with people. When everyone is on the same page, a good outcome is likely. When everyone is a true believer in the company and the project--when they're totally onboard--then a great outcome is much more likely.
