When the human resource department is hiring new managers, they tend to focus more on the technical expertise possessed. However, technical expertise and effective management are two different things. In most cases, it has proven that having the most considerable amount of technical expertise does not translate into effective leadership. This was also proven in Google’s Project Oxygen Resuscitates Poor-Performing Bosses. The Company formed a task force comprising scientists and researchers. The task force studied the Company’s supervisors by interviewing the company’s employees as well as the supervisors’ reviews. After the project was over, a plethora of information was obtained. Some of the information gathered mirrored conventional wisdom; however, some of the information did not.
From the survey, the teams that had high-rated managers had the highest performance. The employees that belonged to these teams were not only happy but they also longer in the company. This means that the managers in these teams had more impact on the way employees perceived their jobs than any other factor. This finding is consistent with common believe that leaders play a critical role in influencing employee retention, satisfaction, as well as performance. It also proved that failed employee performance should not only be blamed on the employees but also their leaders. Leaders exhibiting poor leadership skills disengage their employees, hamper their productivity and thus, lead to high employee turnover rates.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The survey results surprised Google because they expected that high technical expertise would cause effective leadership. However, this was not the case because it turned out that the bosses with excellent leadership were not those possessing great technical expertise. Instead, the best leaders were those who were even-tempered, those that would help their teams in navigating through problems without feeling micromanaged. These leaders also cared about their employees. Through the survey, Google implemented coaching and training programs. The bulk of the managers in the company at that time was worst performing, and Google needed good programs to train as well as coach them. Google came up with standards constituting good bosses in large companies and most specifically, Google. These standards included being a good coach, empowering the employees without micromanaging them, being concerned with the personal well-being of the employees as well as their success. A good leader should also be results-oriented, productive, have excellent communication as well as listening skills. He or she should offer guidance on career development to the employees, have a clear strategy as well as a clear vision for their team. The leader should also possess significant technical skills so that they can advise their teams.
Even though Google was surprised by their survey, I am not surprised at all by the research. Google learnt that the bosses with excellent leadership were not those possessing great technical expertise but those with even-tempered and would help their teams in navigating through problems without feeling micromanaged. Although it was a surprise to them, I am not perplexed by research because I know that any company, especially the big companies need to mix behavioral skills with technical skills. Despite Google having many job perks for its workers, the company continued experiencing high rates of employee turnover. Google did not realize that the number one reason making employees quit their jobs was problems from their bosses. It is only through the research that Google realized that the bulk of the managers in the company was worst performing and that the company needed good programs to train as well as coach these managers. The new coaching and training program laid down the expected attributes for Google Company.
