May 232011
 

Some­how I missed the news about Google’s Pro­ject Oxy­gen earli­er this year. This was a large pro­ject that meas­ured what skills the most effect­ive man­agers at Google use, and the pit­falls poor man­agers fall into. As one might expect from Google, the res­ults are but­tressed by a ser­i­ous amount of data: over 10,000 answers about 100 vari­ables. If you work for any­one, or man­age any­one, it’s worth read­ing about, even if what you do isn’t in software. 

What I found inter­est­ing was this quote, from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/business/13hire.html:

In the Google con­text, we’d always believed that to be a man­ager, par­tic­u­larly on the engin­eer­ing side, you need to be as deep or deep­er a tech­nic­al expert than the people who work for you,” Mr. Bock says. “It turns out that that’s abso­lutely the least import­ant thing. It’s import­ant, but pales in com­par­is­on. Much more import­ant is just mak­ing that con­nec­tion and being accessible.” 

It’s been recog­nised for some time in oth­er busi­nesses that the skills required to be a good man­ager are not neces­sar­ily the same as those needed to do good tech­nic­al work. I’m glad to see the data com­ing from Google to sup­port the notion that good soft­ware pro­ject man­agers do not have to be tech­nic­al enough to be lead developers (although they do need to have enough tech­nic­al skills to know what’s going on).

/* ]]> */