7 ms·

Even if it turns out this is a puff piece supplied to the Times by Google, it's still a very well written and insightful article explaining a bit of why psychol

by eitally 11y ago

Even if it turns out this is a puff piece supplied to the Times by Google, it's still a very well written and insightful article explaining a bit of why psychological safety is critical for teams to perform optimally. It's probably my favorite Google-related article this year, actually. I'd much prefer reading about companies trying to improve their working environments than about whatever incremental new product feature they're launching.

aarghh 11y ago
Indeed - what I enjoyed and got out of this article is a fairly easy correlation to what separated good teams that I have been on from bad ones. I had classified the difference as "camaraderie" - but the idea of psychological safety is a little more useful. Camaraderie is the superficial outcome, while psychological safety is the enabler.
- tamana 11y ago
  Psychological safety is the modern euphemism for what used to be called "culture fit".
  - mc32 11y ago
    Not really, one term is the popular term the other one is a term from behavioral psychology. So they describe the same phenomenon but by different people.
    - mox111 11y ago
      Someone could fit very nicely into a given working culture despite that culture not being 'psychologically safe' by the author's definition. They are not the same concept.
      - mc32 11y ago
        Is fitting in or the ability to fit in the same as a good cultural fit? Never the less, one of the terms is from psychology, one of the terms is from pop culture and may not overlap completely
  - sdenton4 11y ago
    On the contrary. Culture fit is a pretty normative term: It says to me, we act like THIS at this company, and we're looking for more people who act like THIS. It's pretty explicitly anti-diversity, and speaks to a search for cultural homogeneity. Psychological safety is less normative: It's about being in a space where it's safe to voice an opinion, and feel that you're heard and valued for your contributions. It's a term that can apply in a very culturally diverse team.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Maybe in theory, but in practice? Either the team has a shared culture of open-mindedness, or a culturally diverse team will have opinions which are held by some and taboo for others. Either way, you need a common culture, even if it's fairly broad and flexible.
      - sangnoir 11y ago
        Why would an open-minded team enforce conformity (via 'cultural fit')?
        icebraining 11y ago
        Open-mindedness is a culture trait in itself. Few people feel comfortable in an environment where nothing is off-limits.
        zeveb 11y ago
        > Why would an open-minded team enforce conformity (via 'cultural fit')? Because being open-minded is their enforced conformity.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  I call it "respect." If people on the team don't feel respected, they won't feel "psychologically safe," no matter how many rules you put down. And if the leader of the team doesn't respect a member, he won't listen to the member, no matter how long the member gets to talk.
boothead 11y ago
It seems to be an excerpt from Charles Duhig's (author of The Power of Habit) new book.
ignoramous 11y ago
> It's probably my favorite Google-related article this year It's Feb. :D > I'd much prefer reading about companies trying to improve their working environments than about whatever incremental new product feature they're launching. Google has set the right precedent for the tech-industry, and I am grateful for them having done that. 'Cause other big tech-cos like Amazon sure don't give a damn about employee well-being (not just warehouse workers, but engineers too).
- influx 11y ago
  As a counter point, the best team I ever worked on was at Amazon, and years later many of us are still friends. Further, AWS is cleaning Google's clock with number of features, delivering new services, and providing customer value.
nickbauman 11y ago
I remember a gig I had where one of the developers was someone who didn't seem to be technically that deep. Yet every project she worked on did better because of something nobody at the time understood. I remember having such a great feeling about working with her every day. I didn't get that from other people. I think this article explains why she was so awesome: She made people feel safe. When she talked to you, you felt like the most important person in the room.
- decasia 11y ago
  If it was a situation where most of the devs were men and your colleague was one of the only women, it seems likely that gender dynamics and stereotypes about women made a big difference in her getting perceived as "non-technical and comforting" (that's one of the usual stereotypes about women developers, after all).
  - nickbauman 11y ago
    In this case not a stereotype. I think she had tremendous raw intelligence but she was a fulltime mom with kids and was caregiving for her aging parents at the same time and a husband on the road a lot. This just didn't leave her much time to deep dive on anything. If I were in her shoes I'd probably been fired for not keeping up. So she likely had the potential of being the most technically deep person on the team but her life didn't really give her much time to develop that. In the end it didn't matter for the team as a whole: she made things better because she simply was a better and more preceptive person than most people.
  - jameshart 11y ago
    Interesting. If the previous comment had used male pronouns, would it even have occurred to you to associate the described attributes with gender stereotypes?
    - tajen 11y ago
      Yes. There is a very visible pattern. Yes in 2006, but times have changed around 2011-2013 (Twitter's IPO, Mozilla CEO fired, GitHub CEO fired, conferences excluding people for sexual jokes), and if in 2016 I had on my team a woman whose role was to be talkative rather than technical, I would find it sexist. The pattern is "If a junior woman can't code, let's promote her as team lead; If a junior man can't code, let's teach him to code" - and this is wrong because both sides have everything to lose with this behavior.
cbhl 11y ago
I don't think this piece should be read as "come work for Google" (although you can interpret it that way). Rather, I think the researchers would want see all companies to take advantage of this research and use it to make every workplace better. (Disclaimer: This is my opinion, not that of my employer.)
bayonetz 11y ago
I love the topic and like this particular article. Having said that, this still feels like a puff piece. The notion of psychological safety certainly matters but not always. My experience is it matters less when you have teams made up more of "thinkers" (vs "feelers"). Also matters less when the team has a clear vision and set of requirements and just needs to adapt their past expertise to minor variations in new problem. Sometimes teams are more efficient and innovative when truth wins over harmony. Depends on team's purpose, etc. Let me be clear, I prefer the more psychologically safe mode of group work. Yet it's still pretty clear to me that hinders, not helps, in plenty of cases.
- jacalata 11y ago
  >Sometimes teams are more efficient and innovative when truth wins over harmony If you have to pick, your team sucks.
- knightofmars 11y ago
  > Sometimes teams are more efficient and innovative when truth wins over harmony. I suspect a confusing of "harmony" as a situation in which people don't speak up out of not wanting to hurt someone else's feelings with "harmony" where everyone is comfortable speaking their mind as they know their comments won't be taken as an attack or unnecessary criticism. The second definition of "harmony" is actual harmony. The first is anything but.
- groby_b 11y ago
  > Sometimes teams are more efficient and innovative when truth wins over harmony. I'll just quote what the Rust team said about their code of conduct, because it's spot-on: "The Rust community doesn't subscribe to the notion that there's a dichotomy between intellectual discourse and kindness." That's pretty much it. If your team considers those two mutually exclusive, you're headed for trouble. It might not be today or tomorrow, but you will pay for it long-term.
- eyeinthepyramid 11y ago
  Why wouldn't psychological safety include feeling safe that the truth won't hurt someone's feelings? edit: or if it does hurt their feelings, that they'll be able to express that safely, and you'll all be able to resolve the conflict.

by eitally 11y ago

aarghh 11y ago

Indeed - what I enjoyed and got out of this article is a fairly easy correlation to what separated good teams that I have been on from bad ones. I had classified the difference as "camaraderie" - but the idea of psychological safety is a little more useful. Camaraderie is the superficial outcome, while psychological safety is the enabler.

tamana 11y ago
Psychological safety is the modern euphemism for what used to be called "culture fit".
- mc32 11y ago
  Not really, one term is the popular term the other one is a term from behavioral psychology. So they describe the same phenomenon but by different people.
  - mox111 11y ago
    Someone could fit very nicely into a given working culture despite that culture not being 'psychologically safe' by the author's definition. They are not the same concept.
    - mc32 11y ago
      Is fitting in or the ability to fit in the same as a good cultural fit? Never the less, one of the terms is from psychology, one of the terms is from pop culture and may not overlap completely
- sdenton4 11y ago
  On the contrary. Culture fit is a pretty normative term: It says to me, we act like THIS at this company, and we're looking for more people who act like THIS. It's pretty explicitly anti-diversity, and speaks to a search for cultural homogeneity. Psychological safety is less normative: It's about being in a space where it's safe to voice an opinion, and feel that you're heard and valued for your contributions. It's a term that can apply in a very culturally diverse team.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Maybe in theory, but in practice? Either the team has a shared culture of open-mindedness, or a culturally diverse team will have opinions which are held by some and taboo for others. Either way, you need a common culture, even if it's fairly broad and flexible.
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      Why would an open-minded team enforce conformity (via 'cultural fit')?
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Open-mindedness is a culture trait in itself. Few people feel comfortable in an environment where nothing is off-limits.
      - zeveb 11y ago
        > Why would an open-minded team enforce conformity (via 'cultural fit')? Because being open-minded is their enforced conformity.
ktRolster 11y ago
I call it "respect." If people on the team don't feel respected, they won't feel "psychologically safe," no matter how many rules you put down. And if the leader of the team doesn't respect a member, he won't listen to the member, no matter how long the member gets to talk.

boothead 11y ago

It seems to be an excerpt from Charles Duhig's (author of The Power of Habit) new book.

ignoramous 11y ago

> It's probably my favorite Google-related article this year It's Feb. :D > I'd much prefer reading about companies trying to improve their working environments than about whatever incremental new product feature they're launching. Google has set the right precedent for the tech-industry, and I am grateful for them having done that. 'Cause other big tech-cos like Amazon sure don't give a damn about employee well-being (not just warehouse workers, but engineers too).

influx 11y ago
As a counter point, the best team I ever worked on was at Amazon, and years later many of us are still friends. Further, AWS is cleaning Google's clock with number of features, delivering new services, and providing customer value.

nickbauman 11y ago

I remember a gig I had where one of the developers was someone who didn't seem to be technically that deep. Yet every project she worked on did better because of something nobody at the time understood. I remember having such a great feeling about working with her every day. I didn't get that from other people. I think this article explains why she was so awesome: She made people feel safe. When she talked to you, you felt like the most important person in the room.

decasia 11y ago
If it was a situation where most of the devs were men and your colleague was one of the only women, it seems likely that gender dynamics and stereotypes about women made a big difference in her getting perceived as "non-technical and comforting" (that's one of the usual stereotypes about women developers, after all).
- nickbauman 11y ago
  In this case not a stereotype. I think she had tremendous raw intelligence but she was a fulltime mom with kids and was caregiving for her aging parents at the same time and a husband on the road a lot. This just didn't leave her much time to deep dive on anything. If I were in her shoes I'd probably been fired for not keeping up. So she likely had the potential of being the most technically deep person on the team but her life didn't really give her much time to develop that. In the end it didn't matter for the team as a whole: she made things better because she simply was a better and more preceptive person than most people.
- jameshart 11y ago
  Interesting. If the previous comment had used male pronouns, would it even have occurred to you to associate the described attributes with gender stereotypes?
  - tajen 11y ago
    Yes. There is a very visible pattern. Yes in 2006, but times have changed around 2011-2013 (Twitter's IPO, Mozilla CEO fired, GitHub CEO fired, conferences excluding people for sexual jokes), and if in 2016 I had on my team a woman whose role was to be talkative rather than technical, I would find it sexist. The pattern is "If a junior woman can't code, let's promote her as team lead; If a junior man can't code, let's teach him to code" - and this is wrong because both sides have everything to lose with this behavior.

cbhl 11y ago

I don't think this piece should be read as "come work for Google" (although you can interpret it that way). Rather, I think the researchers would want see all companies to take advantage of this research and use it to make every workplace better. (Disclaimer: This is my opinion, not that of my employer.)

bayonetz 11y ago

I love the topic and like this particular article. Having said that, this still feels like a puff piece. The notion of psychological safety certainly matters but not always. My experience is it matters less when you have teams made up more of "thinkers" (vs "feelers"). Also matters less when the team has a clear vision and set of requirements and just needs to adapt their past expertise to minor variations in new problem. Sometimes teams are more efficient and innovative when truth wins over harmony. Depends on team's purpose, etc. Let me be clear, I prefer the more psychologically safe mode of group work. Yet it's still pretty clear to me that hinders, not helps, in plenty of cases.

jacalata 11y ago
>Sometimes teams are more efficient and innovative when truth wins over harmony If you have to pick, your team sucks.
knightofmars 11y ago
> Sometimes teams are more efficient and innovative when truth wins over harmony. I suspect a confusing of "harmony" as a situation in which people don't speak up out of not wanting to hurt someone else's feelings with "harmony" where everyone is comfortable speaking their mind as they know their comments won't be taken as an attack or unnecessary criticism. The second definition of "harmony" is actual harmony. The first is anything but.
groby_b 11y ago
> Sometimes teams are more efficient and innovative when truth wins over harmony. I'll just quote what the Rust team said about their code of conduct, because it's spot-on: "The Rust community doesn't subscribe to the notion that there's a dichotomy between intellectual discourse and kindness." That's pretty much it. If your team considers those two mutually exclusive, you're headed for trouble. It might not be today or tomorrow, but you will pay for it long-term.
eyeinthepyramid 11y ago
Why wouldn't psychological safety include feeling safe that the truth won't hurt someone's feelings? edit: or if it does hurt their feelings, that they'll be able to express that safely, and you'll all be able to resolve the conflict.