6 ms·

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 deepl

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.
    - spyspy 6y ago
      You seem to be mistaking a manager as not part of “the team”. If you have a direct supervisor who over-admonishes engineers for their mistakes they violate point #2 more blatantly than any engineer could.
      - bradlys 6y ago
        I think they should be categorized differently. As I said, "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)." The influence they have on psychological safety is so much more important than the rest of the team. To the point that it doesn't even matter at all what the team does if the manager isn't going along with it. It's to the point where referencing team is kinda meaningless. It gives a sense that it's a group effort when it's usually bottle-necked by the manager more than anything else. Yes, group effort in the end but if the manager ain't going along (which is usually the problem) then it's a non-starter.
spyspy 6y ago
This is absolutely spot on. In fact these are the exact 3 points I came up with when I’ve thought about “high performing teams”. If you don’t have a team that thoroughly enjoys what they’re building and each other you have nothing. Skill is tertiary but important. At least one person needs to know what they’re doing. Even if the other 5 just graduated middle school, if they’re eager to learn and willing to listen things will be copacetic.
- brandmeyer 6y ago
  They do have to be eager to learn, and be capable of recognizing when they are in a position to learn more from their teammates.
bob33212 6y ago
There is enormous business pressure to ignore everything you just said. If upper management wants the team to work on a project that the team feels is a waste of time the only fix is to tell management to find another project for the team. And that doesn't go over well with management very often.
- ncphillips 6y ago
  If management is pushing a project it is their Responsibility to clearly articulate why a project is being taken on. If the team thinks it’s a waste of time then management has failed to communicate the companies objectives and how the project relates. If the people closest to the project don’t understand why it’s worth doing that’s a huge red flag and they should reconsider the project entirely.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  > If you want it implemented you can just do it yourself. I really want to say that...

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.
  - spyspy 6y ago
    You seem to be mistaking a manager as not part of “the team”. If you have a direct supervisor who over-admonishes engineers for their mistakes they violate point #2 more blatantly than any engineer could.
    - bradlys 6y ago
      I think they should be categorized differently. As I said, "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)." The influence they have on psychological safety is so much more important than the rest of the team. To the point that it doesn't even matter at all what the team does if the manager isn't going along with it. It's to the point where referencing team is kinda meaningless. It gives a sense that it's a group effort when it's usually bottle-necked by the manager more than anything else. Yes, group effort in the end but if the manager ain't going along (which is usually the problem) then it's a non-starter.

spyspy 6y ago

This is absolutely spot on. In fact these are the exact 3 points I came up with when I’ve thought about “high performing teams”. If you don’t have a team that thoroughly enjoys what they’re building and each other you have nothing. Skill is tertiary but important. At least one person needs to know what they’re doing. Even if the other 5 just graduated middle school, if they’re eager to learn and willing to listen things will be copacetic.

brandmeyer 6y ago
They do have to be eager to learn, and be capable of recognizing when they are in a position to learn more from their teammates.

bob33212 6y ago

There is enormous business pressure to ignore everything you just said. If upper management wants the team to work on a project that the team feels is a waste of time the only fix is to tell management to find another project for the team. And that doesn't go over well with management very often.

ncphillips 6y ago
If management is pushing a project it is their Responsibility to clearly articulate why a project is being taken on. If the team thinks it’s a waste of time then management has failed to communicate the companies objectives and how the project relates. If the people closest to the project don’t understand why it’s worth doing that’s a huge red flag and they should reconsider the project entirely.
Aeolun 6y ago
> If you want it implemented you can just do it yourself. I really want to say that...