3 ms·

I would like to hear about more about point number two. Specifically, is "talking about our insecurities, fears and aspirations" (quoted from the nytimes articl

by sridca 11y ago

I would like to hear about more about point number two. Specifically, is "talking about our insecurities, fears and aspirations" (quoted from the nytimes article) part of it?

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
No, it's more about creating an environment such that you can tell your "boss" they fucked up, and how, they will say "you're right, lets fix it."
- sridca 11y ago
  Okay. That's in fact how the nytimes article started: > One engineer, for instance, had told researchers that his team leader was "direct and straightforward, which creates a [psychological] safe space for you to take risks." However the rest of the article went onto to talking more about expressing one's feelings and vulnerability. I think this is a key difference between Google's and the US Military's approach to team building.
  - diffraction 11y ago
    In short: andrewcommando commented without reading the article the military and google are very different organizations with different goals, so it's unlikely they will be run the same a perfect team in the military will not look like a perfect team at google. both organizations will wisely punt to other organizations when they come up against a challenge outside of their domains of expertise. for example: the military does not design and build its own aircraft/weapons/tanks, nor does google engineer and build its datacenters
    - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
      In short: andrewcommando commented without reading the article Ha, I actually did, but thanks. Also good guess on my team name (commando) ;) You are right though that it's not a 1:1 substitution but the principles align well.
- toughguys 11y ago
  Of course, there are some other, unspoken prerequisites to this sort of perfect harmony of flower children prancing through the meadow. - pre-selection of qualified individuals - dictatorial authority precluding much superfluous decision making - martial and capital punishment casting a long shadow - high stakes besides all of this - weeding out according to fitness long before harmony is reached, where the weak are pruned mercilessly What about: - shitty HR negotiations - lies during interviews, that can neither be proven nor disproved - grooming habits - sexual tension - and the rest of all of our human foibles
  - borkabrak 11y ago
    The dismissive exaggeration with which this comment describes the topic seems to indicate a hostile disdain that I find confusing, all the more for how common it seems to be. I can't quite get my mind to really understand why some viewpoints respond with aggression to ideas like what the article calls psychological safety. I think it might have to do with how it's the aggression itself that were being called on to remove.
e12e 11y ago
From the study linked in my comment higher up, I seem to recall that one thing that surprised the anthropologist was how the team came together and helped each other deal with feelings and grief when a team mate died during a training exercise. (Don't think that's in the English summary -- and it might have been from a comment made in a Norwegian interview).

by sridca 11y ago

I would like to hear about more about point number two. Specifically, is "talking about our insecurities, fears and aspirations" (quoted from the nytimes article) part of it?

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

No, it's more about creating an environment such that you can tell your "boss" they fucked up, and how, they will say "you're right, lets fix it."

sridca 11y ago
Okay. That's in fact how the nytimes article started: > One engineer, for instance, had told researchers that his team leader was "direct and straightforward, which creates a [psychological] safe space for you to take risks." However the rest of the article went onto to talking more about expressing one's feelings and vulnerability. I think this is a key difference between Google's and the US Military's approach to team building.
- diffraction 11y ago
  In short: andrewcommando commented without reading the article the military and google are very different organizations with different goals, so it's unlikely they will be run the same a perfect team in the military will not look like a perfect team at google. both organizations will wisely punt to other organizations when they come up against a challenge outside of their domains of expertise. for example: the military does not design and build its own aircraft/weapons/tanks, nor does google engineer and build its datacenters
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    In short: andrewcommando commented without reading the article Ha, I actually did, but thanks. Also good guess on my team name (commando) ;) You are right though that it's not a 1:1 substitution but the principles align well.
toughguys 11y ago
Of course, there are some other, unspoken prerequisites to this sort of perfect harmony of flower children prancing through the meadow. - pre-selection of qualified individuals - dictatorial authority precluding much superfluous decision making - martial and capital punishment casting a long shadow - high stakes besides all of this - weeding out according to fitness long before harmony is reached, where the weak are pruned mercilessly What about: - shitty HR negotiations - lies during interviews, that can neither be proven nor disproved - grooming habits - sexual tension - and the rest of all of our human foibles
- borkabrak 11y ago
  The dismissive exaggeration with which this comment describes the topic seems to indicate a hostile disdain that I find confusing, all the more for how common it seems to be. I can't quite get my mind to really understand why some viewpoints respond with aggression to ideas like what the article calls psychological safety. I think it might have to do with how it's the aggression itself that were being called on to remove.

e12e 11y ago

From the study linked in my comment higher up, I seem to recall that one thing that surprised the anthropologist was how the team came together and helped each other deal with feelings and grief when a team mate died during a training exercise. (Don't think that's in the English summary -- and it might have been from a comment made in a Norwegian interview).