3 ms·

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 beca

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.

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.