Reference no: EM133518969

Case Study: When it comes to gathering data and analyzing them to build new and better products, few companies do it as well as Google. Recently, Google decided to use its infotech expertise to answer an important question: Since people make the difference between good and great companies, could a data-driven, analytical approach be used to improve Google's HRM function? Such an approach worked for Billy Beane, so surely it could work for Google, couldn't it? Recall from Chapter 2 that Beane, the manager of the Oakland A's, dramatically improved players and the team using data and statistics. (Actor Brad Pitt dramatized Beane's efforts in the movie Moneyball.)

One thing Google wanted to know was if it could "build" better bosses. Why? Because despite the many job perks Google's workers get, the company's employee turnover rate was surprisingly high. It's been said that the number 1 reason people leave their jobs is because of their bosses. Could this be true at Google? And if so, could the behaviours of good bosses be pinpointed and used to improve the performance of not-so-good bosses? The researchers at Google wanted to find out. They also wanted to answer these questions using data from their own organization to find out precisely what works for Google rather than other organizations.

To answers these questions, a team of 25-plus Google researchers and scientists began studying the company's supervisors using their performance reviews, surveys from their employees, interviews, and observations of their behaviours. Over 10,000 observations were collected on 100 variables to determine how well the supervisors were performing. Initially, not all supervisors were thrilled to be evaluated by their subordinates and "put under the microscope." Consequently, the effort took some "selling" to Google's top management. The fact that the researchers could point to dramatic differences in the overall ratings employees gave different managers and that some teams performed much better than others helped fuel the fire to get Project Oxygen off the ground. (Presumably, a good boss gives you room to breathe, whereas a bad boss can suck the life right out of you-hence the project's name.)

Once concluded, Project Oxygen yielded a plethora of information, some of which mirrored conventional wisdom and some of which did not: teams with higher-rated managers performed better, the employees in them were happier, and they stayed with the company longer. Their managers had more impact on how the employees felt about their jobs than any other factor. However, it turned out that the best bosses weren't the ones with the greatest technical expertise, as Google had anticipated. Instead, they were those who are even-tempered, help their teams think through problems without micromanaging them, and care about them as people. Google then used the information it gathered to implement training and coaching programs to quickly improve the quality of the bulk of its worst-performing managers.

Specifically, Google identified eight behaviours you should engage in if you want to be a good boss-at least at Google:
1. Be a good coach.
2. Empower your team and don't micromanage.
3. Express interest in team members' success and personal well-being.
4. Be productive and results oriented.
5. Be a good communicator and listen to your team.
6. Help your employees with career development.
7. Have a clear vision and strategy for the team.
8. Have key technical skills so you can help advise the team.

Questions:

1) Why isn't having the greatest amount of technical expertise the key to being a good supervisor at Google?

2) Does Google's research on the performance of its managers surprise you? Why or why not?