3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoIn 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 agoIn 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.