5 ms·

Working for a team like this with psychological safety does indeed sound magical, but I rarely encounter teams like this, big or small corps. I'm not saying the

Working for a team like this with psychological safety does indeed sound magical, but I rarely encounter teams like this, big or small corps. I'm not saying they don't exist, just rare. With that being said, two questions arise: 1. What kinds of incentives, business area and market forces create or prevent such teams from forming (since I feel these teams are rare), and how does one ensure a pit of success here ? 2. Is it already hopeless when you inherit a team with low psychological safety or flat out incompetent team members ? Are there incremental steps to get there ?

kradroy 6y ago
I have some experience with these questions. 1. Management, and involvement of management in particular. When you're an individual contributor, it can often be motivating and validating to hear praise and interest from a manager, director, VP or beyond. 2. It's not hopeless. In that case there are two courses of action required a) engage the team and build an atmosphere of psychological safety; this is done by giving focused, time-relevant feedback, both positive and critical, on behavior in group settings (e.g. "That question you asked in stand-up was critical. I'm glad you brought it up.") b) push out (fire, transfer, etc) negative influencers and those who don't contribute, once enough time has passed since instituting team culture changes. 2.b might sound harsh, but in normal circumstances a group of people will reject and disassociate with a member who no longer shares their values. In a work setting a manager has to do this or they risk the productive and positive team members leaving.
momokoko 6y ago
I’ve found a pretty simple formula. 1. Team deeply cares about the product. Not just the tech. 2. Team deeply cares about each other and has things they deeply care about outside of work. 3. Team has a high level of skill and talent and teammates rarely have to ask for help(as opposed to suggestions / ideas). So in a way it’s hopeless if you don’t have all three. Some people simply do not have a lot of passion for life and work and some people just don’t have enough talent and skill. But sometimes they do and it’s the original culture they inherited that causes the problems. In that case you can fix things. With that said, we all play with the cards we are dealt and you can still achieve great things without a high functioning team.
- bradlys 6y ago
  Are you saying those are key elements to psychological safety? I’ve never found any of those correlated with psychological safety.
  - momokoko 6y ago
    1. When a team cares deeply about the product as opposed to just the tech, everyone’s goals tend to be more aligned and people tease things less personally because they realize the other person is saying or doing something to make the product better. As opposed to picking favorites or picking tech they want for their resume / career growth. 2. When a team cares deeply about each other there is less distrust and misinterpretation of statements. When people have things the care about outside of work they are less likely to get over emotional about a decision. 3. When there is a high level of skill all around, people are less likely to feel nervous about looking bad or covering up a deficiency. All of this results in greater trust and perspective which correlates quite heavily with psychological safety.
    - bradlys 6y ago
      In a perfect world where there were no managers - maybe this would be true? I can imagine this being more true in a flatter organization or in one where everyone has similar authority inside the company. But, in a more common place, I don't see this being sufficient. The effect a manager/skip-level-manager has on the psychological safety of an environment heavily outweighs any contributions an IC makes (or even a group of ICs). I'd like to add: High level of skill isn't sufficient to say someone is less likely to feel nervous about looking bad or trying to cover up a deficiency. It's entirely up to management and how they punish/reward you. If you are perceived to be high level but make a simple mistake that a lower level employee would make - certain kinds of management would punish you for it. So, you might be nervous because of how management treats you - not because you're bad in your abilities and lack some years of confidence thing. There are certain skills I have that are in the top 1%. You can bet your ass if someone is evaluating me - I get nervous. But if no one is evaluating or I don't even know they're evaluating - I'm not nervous. My point is: I don't think high of level skill is sufficient criteria to say you're less likely to be nervous... It's very environment dependent and not skill dependent.
itronitron 6y ago
Not hopeless. Teams with low psychological safety can recover after the toxic people leave. You still need a manager or team lead to show people the path but in my experience 90% of the people want to help their coworkers and be part of something valuable/bigger. It's important that the team be highly connected (in how they coordinate their work), if it's one person talking one on one with everyone else then that's not going to result in a high-functioning team. You also need excitement among at least some of the team members.
pugworthy 6y ago
It is rare, which is why we often have that great team/project that we miss so much because it was just right. You can interpret the Steve Jobs quote about A players hiring A players, and B's hiring C's (and so on) as a reflection of technical skill, but I think it's a lot more about personality and psychological safety than technical skill. A good team often seems to focus job interviews on the person, not the technology. Yes, make sure the person can do the job technically, but really focus on whether they'll get along and work well with the team. Make sure they are a good fit. That's A players hiring A players.

kradroy 6y ago

I have some experience with these questions. 1. Management, and involvement of management in particular. When you're an individual contributor, it can often be motivating and validating to hear praise and interest from a manager, director, VP or beyond. 2. It's not hopeless. In that case there are two courses of action required a) engage the team and build an atmosphere of psychological safety; this is done by giving focused, time-relevant feedback, both positive and critical, on behavior in group settings (e.g. "That question you asked in stand-up was critical. I'm glad you brought it up.") b) push out (fire, transfer, etc) negative influencers and those who don't contribute, once enough time has passed since instituting team culture changes. 2.b might sound harsh, but in normal circumstances a group of people will reject and disassociate with a member who no longer shares their values. In a work setting a manager has to do this or they risk the productive and positive team members leaving.

momokoko 6y ago

I’ve found a pretty simple formula. 1. Team deeply cares about the product. Not just the tech. 2. Team deeply cares about each other and has things they deeply care about outside of work. 3. Team has a high level of skill and talent and teammates rarely have to ask for help(as opposed to suggestions / ideas). So in a way it’s hopeless if you don’t have all three. Some people simply do not have a lot of passion for life and work and some people just don’t have enough talent and skill. But sometimes they do and it’s the original culture they inherited that causes the problems. In that case you can fix things. With that said, we all play with the cards we are dealt and you can still achieve great things without a high functioning team.

bradlys 6y ago
Are you saying those are key elements to psychological safety? I’ve never found any of those correlated with psychological safety.
- momokoko 6y ago
  1. When a team cares deeply about the product as opposed to just the tech, everyone’s goals tend to be more aligned and people tease things less personally because they realize the other person is saying or doing something to make the product better. As opposed to picking favorites or picking tech they want for their resume / career growth. 2. When a team cares deeply about each other there is less distrust and misinterpretation of statements. When people have things the care about outside of work they are less likely to get over emotional about a decision. 3. When there is a high level of skill all around, people are less likely to feel nervous about looking bad or covering up a deficiency. All of this results in greater trust and perspective which correlates quite heavily with psychological safety.
  - bradlys 6y ago
    In a perfect world where there were no managers - maybe this would be true? I can imagine this being more true in a flatter organization or in one where everyone has similar authority inside the company. But, in a more common place, I don't see this being sufficient. The effect a manager/skip-level-manager has on the psychological safety of an environment heavily outweighs any contributions an IC makes (or even a group of ICs). I'd like to add: High level of skill isn't sufficient to say someone is less likely to feel nervous about looking bad or trying to cover up a deficiency. It's entirely up to management and how they punish/reward you. If you are perceived to be high level but make a simple mistake that a lower level employee would make - certain kinds of management would punish you for it. So, you might be nervous because of how management treats you - not because you're bad in your abilities and lack some years of confidence thing. There are certain skills I have that are in the top 1%. You can bet your ass if someone is evaluating me - I get nervous. But if no one is evaluating or I don't even know they're evaluating - I'm not nervous. My point is: I don't think high of level skill is sufficient criteria to say you're less likely to be nervous... It's very environment dependent and not skill dependent.

itronitron 6y ago

Not hopeless. Teams with low psychological safety can recover after the toxic people leave. You still need a manager or team lead to show people the path but in my experience 90% of the people want to help their coworkers and be part of something valuable/bigger. It's important that the team be highly connected (in how they coordinate their work), if it's one person talking one on one with everyone else then that's not going to result in a high-functioning team. You also need excitement among at least some of the team members.

pugworthy 6y ago

It is rare, which is why we often have that great team/project that we miss so much because it was just right. You can interpret the Steve Jobs quote about A players hiring A players, and B's hiring C's (and so on) as a reflection of technical skill, but I think it's a lot more about personality and psychological safety than technical skill. A good team often seems to focus job interviews on the person, not the technology. Yes, make sure the person can do the job technically, but really focus on whether they'll get along and work well with the team. Make sure they are a good fit. That's A players hiring A players.