Interesting article re: Google and STEM majors

[Tranquility7]

Interesting article!

The Surprising Thing Google Learned About Its Employees

Edited January 2, 2018 by tranquility7

[luuknam]

Realistically, Google has pretty high technical standards for hiring, afaik. So, it's hardly a fair study, because they're not including people with mediocre technical skills. So, yeah, once you've got great technical skills, soft skills are more important than having genius technical skills... but that doesn't necessarily mean that soft skills are more important than having technical skills. For all we know, this study just means that it's good to be great at everything. 

 

And I think we all already knew that soft skills are important too. 

[fralala]

One other thing I wonder about is the writer's assumption that soft skills are more likely to be gained in humanities than in science or math classes. Also that these are skills for young adults to work on through their college majors.

 

There are certain types of interactions, teaching, and experiences that can nurture communication skills, empathy, and so forth...they need not take place in a philosophy class. (And often don't.) Indeed, by the time one gets to the level of specialization, I would hope that one had already developed these skills and practiced them. I would probably have taken these findings in a different direction-- everybody should have the kind of education in which they go off to college in firm possession of these skills,not in which they have to choose a college major based upon what will best help them develop empathy, make connections, or listen well to others.

[Bluegoat]

Maybe if the founders had broader educations themselves, this would not have been a surprise to them.

[Bluegoat]

Along the same lines, our local medical school for many years was only interested in science degrees.  At a certain point they realized that they were not getting the kind of doctors they wanted, and began to look at a much broader range of students.

 

I think one thing is, once a bright person goes to work at a tech company, they are going to learn a lot of the specialized technical things that they need for their work.

 

What they won't necessarily learn are the things that have more to do with innate talent or personality - the ability to empathize for example.  They may not spend a lot of time learning about history or literature, subjects which enrich the perspective of persons in any career.  And they won't learn the kind of complex thinking that is particular to education in the humanities.

 

If you want some of your employees to have those skills, you will want to see them established before you hire them.

[HS Mom in NC]

My husband is a software consultant.  He would agree with this.  He fires a lot of people with high technical ability who are nightmares to work with.  They cost companies billions of dollars every year, often because of time management and communication failures.

These people:

1. Can't hear what a customer wants (by customer I don't mean the masses, I mean a company that needs a specific type of software or software/hardware developed) over their own idealized visions and priorities.
2. Can't decipher what the company hiring the expert actually needs because the person from the company hiring the expert isn't an expert so their language and understanding won't be as technical. 

3. Can't communicate effectively with those who hired them because the software guys can't use less than expertly technical language.  There are legal consequences when it comes to fulfilling contracts and work orders.

4. Can't communicate effectively with colleagues working on different aspects of the job in written or spoken form.

5. Can't prioritize competing needs of release dates, values of different features, etc.

6. Can't manage time, meet deadlines, set priorities, etc.

7. Can't use flexible thinking in general.

Software is where language and math meet.  If you're only good at one, software isn't really for you.  Sorry, guys. Find something else.

[HS Mom in NC]

 

 

And I think we all already knew that soft skills are important too. 

 

Plenty of STEM students and parents don't know that soft skills are important too.

 

[regentrude]

I don't understand what is surprising about this.

Those companies hire based on technical interviews, aka tests, so everybody they hire is highly qualified technically. 

Some super smart software engineers and scientists lack communication skills. That's as old as history. I have brilliant colleagues who cannot hold a simple conversation.

An efficient company needs people to communicate. Who would have thought.

So, people who combine technical expertise with strong communication skills will be the most sought after.

 

What surprising insights did I miss here?

Edited January 3, 2018 by regentrude

[regentrude]

One other thing I wonder about is the writer's assumption that soft skills are more likely to be gained in humanities than in science or math classes. Also that these are skills for young adults to work on through their college majors.

 

There are certain types of interactions, teaching, and experiences that can nurture communication skills, empathy, and so forth...they need not take place in a philosophy class. (And often don't.) Indeed, by the time one gets to the level of specialization, I would hope that one had already developed these skills and practiced them. I would probably have taken these findings in a different direction-- everybody should have the kind of education in which they go off to college in firm possession of these skills,not in which they have to choose a college major based upon what will best help them develop empathy, make connections, or listen well to others.

 

This.

Many STEM degree programs have explicit requirements for communication rich courses, courses that incorporate teamwork, etc. And I see many STEM students demonstrate great communication and teaching skills, for example when they tutor, or volunteer

You can learn these skills just fine as a physicist or computer scientist.

 

Granted, the humanities majors are often stronger writers, simply because they spend a larger part of their education writing. That does, however, in my experience, not necessarily translate into technical writing abilities.

[Bluegoat]

I think the article really is targeted - most people realize that all kinds of skills are important, and that some highly skilled tech people can have poor skills in other areas.  Any big company will want all kinds of people in roles that suit their talents.  Smaller companies may want most employees to have a broad spectrum of skills.

 

What seems to have happened here is that you had two guys who were very much of the technical type who just didn't get this.  In a way, it is an illustration of the whole idea that different skills give a broader perspective - their understanding of their own business was too narrow.

[HS Mom in NC]

I don't understand what is surprising about this.

Those companies hire based on technical interviews, aka tests, so everybody they hire is highly qualified technically. 

Some super smart software engineers and scientists lack communication skills. That's as old as history. I have brilliant colleagues who cannot hold a simple conversation.

An efficient company needs people to communicate. Who would have thought.

So, people who combine technical expertise with strong communication skills will be the most sought after.

 

What surprising insights did I miss here?

 

My guess is that it's teachers and parents who don't have a background in tech who are the ones missing it.  They don't understand that tech is more than a person in a lab tinkering or at a computer typing away.  I suspect most of them think about the technical task the individual does and they don't grasp the complex, interactive whole that everyone contributing to a finished product deals with.

 

Often managers without technical experience are interviewing programmers, electrical engineers, IT guys, hardware designers, and quality control specialists.  No one manager could possibly have that amount of expertise, yet they have to decide who's a good candidate for the job.  Interviewing software guys is notoriously challenging.  My husband has been hired to sit in on interviews where the manager asks general questions and my husband asks questions about how the programmer has made decisions about all the design trade offs that have to be made in different circumstances-the kind of background you have to have to evaluate those answers is not common.  The hardest and most valuable things to evaluate are how well a programmer adapts principles he's previously used to new situations and applications, and how diligent and willing they are about filling in, on their own, in real time, skills or knowledge gaps from task to task and project to project.  It really is the bleeding edge of technology that changes constantly and the guys who don't keep up will be dinosaurs within 10 years, if not sooner. 

 

[Arcadia]

Those companies hire based on technical interviews, aka tests, so everybody they hire is highly qualified technically.

Some super smart software engineers and scientists lack communication skills. That's as old as history. I have brilliant colleagues who cannot hold a simple conversation.

There are plenty of peer interviews in the tech sector. So besides the technical interview there is also the soft skills and teamwork assessment interviews. Interviews can take more than a day. Now almost every engineer (and intern) hired has to have the soft skills of a technical marketing engineer.

 

Google employs plenty of people near where I stay. The Google employee bus stops in front of my complex. They do have employees that are not so great communicators.

 

I’m lazy so I’m quoting from Intel but the description of soft skills needed is true

 

“Excellent presentation, communication, and technical writing skills are a must. The ability to understand, specify and communicate requirements, as well as the fluidity to speak tech with engineering teams and translate tech for our customers will enhance your experience.†https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/jobs/careers/software/technical-marketing-engineer.html

 

ETA:

I was hired for my first engineering job after a lunch interview while my husband’s latest job interview was from 8am to past 6pm.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Arcadia

[MerryAtHope]

One other thing I wonder about is the writer's assumption that soft skills are more likely to be gained in humanities than in science or math classes. Also that these are skills for young adults to work on through their college majors.

 

There are certain types of interactions, teaching, and experiences that can nurture communication skills, empathy, and so forth...they need not take place in a philosophy class. (And often don't.) Indeed, by the time one gets to the level of specialization, I would hope that one had already developed these skills and practiced them. I would probably have taken these findings in a different direction-- everybody should have the kind of education in which they go off to college in firm possession of these skills,not in which they have to choose a college major based upon what will best help them develop empathy, make connections, or listen well to others.

 

I wish I could remember where I read an article a year or two ago about how studying literature (and I think it specifically mentioned at the college level) helps to develop and improve empathy. I know there is backing for this thought. Anyone remember? I'm pretty sure I came across it here first...

[Syllieann]

I wish I could remember where I read an article a year or two ago about how studying literature (and I think it specifically mentioned at the college level) helps to develop and improve empathy. I know there is backing for this thought. Anyone remember? I'm pretty sure I came across it here first...

I read that too. I think it was in a thread about the new common core requirements. Fiction is still important. I specifically remember thinking, “â€well, people who are more empathetic are just more likely to read fiction,†but the study found changes after assigning different genres to different groups and measuring empathy before and after. Then I checked out some fiction.

[MerryAtHope]

So, people who combine technical expertise with strong communication skills will be the most sought after.

 

Only by companies that recognize the importance of soft skills. Which, apparently, Google did not before they did their study. Yes, it should be obvious that companies need effective communication, but really, tons of companies seem to totally miss this (and it can often be the death of a company). For a large company like Google to come out and say they find those skills as or even more important to the success of their company than technical skills does provide some validation in a world where many parents and students fear that studying the humanities is a waste of time and money. 

 

Maybe those most surprised are those trying to get hired by Google!

[Arcadia]

From Harvard Business Review article Liberal Arts in the Data Age dated July 2017 https://hbr.org/2017/07/liberal-arts-in-the-data-age

 

“What matters now is not the skills you have but how you think. Can you ask the right questions? Do you know what problem you’re trying to solve in the first place? Hartley argues for a true “liberal arts†education—one that includes both hard sciences and “softer†subjects. A well-rounded learning experience, he says, opens people up to new opportunities and helps them develop products that respond to real human needs.

...

Morson and Schapiro’s solution is literature. They suggest that economists could gain wisdom from reading great novelists, who have a deeper insight into people than social scientists do. Whereas economists tend to treat people as abstractions, novelists dig into the specifics. To illustrate the point, Morson and Schapiro ask, When has a scientist’s model or case study drawn a person as vividly as Tolstoy drew Anna Karenina?

 

Novels can also help us develop empathy. Stories, after all, steep us in characters’ lives, forcing us to see the world as other people do. (Morson and Schapiro add that although many fields of study tell their practitioners to empathize, only literature offers practice in doing it.)

...

STEM students can care about human beings, just as English majors (including this one, who started college studying computer science) can investigate things scientifically. We should be careful not to let interdisciplinary jockeying make us cling to what we know best. Everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer, as the saying goes. Similarly, at how great a disadvantage might we put ourselves—and the world—if we force our minds to approach all problems the same way?“

[Tsuga]

My guess is that it's teachers and parents who don't have a background in tech who are the ones missing it. They don't understand that tech is more than a person in a lab tinkering or at a computer typing away. I suspect most of them think about the technical task the individual does and they don't grasp the complex, interactive whole that everyone contributing to a finished product deals with.

 

Often managers without technical experience are interviewing programmers, electrical engineers, IT guys, hardware designers, and quality control specialists. No one manager could possibly have that amount of expertise, yet they have to decide who's a good candidate for the job. Interviewing software guys is notoriously challenging. My husband has been hired to sit in on interviews where the manager asks general questions and my husband asks questions about how the programmer has made decisions about all the design trade offs that have to be made in different circumstances-the kind of background you have to have to evaluate those answers is not common. The hardest and most valuable things to evaluate are how well a programmer adapts principles he's previously used to new situations and applications, and how diligent and willing they are about filling in, on their own, in real time, skills or knowledge gaps from task to task and project to project. It really is the bleeding edge of technology that changes constantly and the guys who don't keep up will be dinosaurs within 10 years, if not sooner.

 

Everywhere I have worked, we have prioritized critical thinking over technical skills. From IT in an aid office to a software architect, the number one thing is how you can explain your answers. I even strick English language skills from many of my qualifications lists. I can teach you English! I cannot teach you to think.

 

What is odd is that so many people working in tech actually don't value this. I think it is because they themselves don't have those skills.

[MarkT]

Make sure you read the comments as well -  WP does a pretty good job of getting decent comments on articles  (especially compared to the WSJ)