The article strikes me as phony and light on substance. The author talks about five traits that everyone will agree are important and states that they are worki

The article strikes me as phony and light on substance. The author talks about five traits that everyone will agree are important and states that they are working on improving it. So far so good. But take dependability for example. Improving it might take some boring things like improving employees' competence (ok, maybe not so relevant for google). Or some unpleasant things like holding people accountable. It is in odds with psychological safety (if risky behavior is encouraged the number of errors will inevitably increase and thus dependability will decrease). How is this tension resolved? The article says nothing. Or take meaning and impact. Improving it might require working on a really important project and not some low-grade maintenance which big companies are full of. How is 10-minute pre-meeting talk going to help? "improved 6% on psychological safety ratings" - seriously? What does it mean to feel 6% more safe? Please at least share how this rating is calculated and ideally also its impact on less ethereal metrics.