Project Oxygen and the Air We Breathe

In 2008, Google launched Project Oxygen, a self-study designed to measure the effectiveness of their team managers. They found ten behaviors common to all the best managers (the bold is mine):
Is a good coach
Empowers team and does not micromanage
Creates an inclusive team environment, showing concern for success and well-being
Is productive and results-oriented
Is a good communicator — listens and shares information
Supports career development and discusses performance
Has a clear vision/strategy for the team
Has key technical skills to help advise the team
Collaborates across Google
Is a strong decision maker

In a 2017 Washington Post article, author and English Professor Cathy Davidson uses these Project Oxygen data as a point of departure in her argument for an appreciation of the humanities, as they train students in many of these skills; and that got me thinking about oxygen, and the air that we breathe.

Specifically, do we live—as Davidson suggests we do— in an atmosphere that prioritizes the STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) over the humanities? It would seem that we do. Nationally, studies tell us that the humanities in universities are suffering a sharp decline in popularity among students and that the most popular majors are more and more to be found among the STEM fields. This is unsurprising, given the widespread belief that it is only through majoring and working in the STEM fields that people will realize a positive “Return on Investment” (ROI) from their college years; in other words, there is in the national ether an implied (indeed, often stated!) belief that the only way to make money (and thus get your money’s worth from college) is by majoring and working in the STEM fields. The corollary is equally powerful: that if a student majors in the humanities; he is destined to be a barista at the local Starbuck’s.

Davidson’s thesis is that Google itself—arguably the quintessential example of our culture’s infatuation with STEM—finds value in the “soft skills” of communication, empathy, and expression, and that these skills are at the core of a humanities-based education; therefore, our culture would do well not to leave behind our appreciation of the humanities in our rush to define and embrace “21st century learning”.

Never mind that Ms. Davidson is a humanities professor and, (of course!) would advance this sort of position; let’s instead ask: Is she correct? Do the humanities take a cultural backseat to the STEM fields?? How would we know? How could we even measure such a claim?

The answers can perhaps be found on the ground, or in the trenches (pick your own favorite, battlefield metaphor—more on this in a couple of paragraphs). Do students choose to do their physics homework over their English homework? Do parents give the impression—even unwittingly— that calculus is more important than history? Are students discontinuing their foreign language study in favor of “doubling up” in math or science? If the answers to any of these questions is “yes, this seems to be happening more and more” (and, incidentally, it is happening more and more—both nationally at high schools and universities—and at Hampton Roads Academy), then we should ask ourselves at what cost?

What are the stakes? Are we, to paraphrase Enjolras from Les Miserables, simply fighting for the right to a night at the opera? Or is there something more to be had from a reinvigorated cultural appreciation of, and engagement with, the humanities?

In fact, why does the STEM/Humanities struggle claimed by Davidson and so many others have to be cast as a battle, an “either/or” issue at all? Why are we so attracted to binary oppositions? Isn’t there room for a cultural/educational appreciation for all the subject areas? If there were, what would our high schools look like? Our colleges? Our lives?

I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Back