Maybe from a developer perspective, the grail is a confident salary and a kind team. Shipping well fosters, but does not guarantee, both. From a management pers

Maybe from a developer perspective, the grail is a confident salary and a kind team. Shipping well fosters, but does not guarantee, both. From a management perspective, "pyschological safety" is not about self actualization but performance. Management is foremost about solving the problem you are accountable for. In development, that will likely mean that success is when the team ships something useful to the business. In an unsafe environment, members of the team are afraid to act and speak. The working relationship devolves to "tell me exactly what you want done". Teams can ship like this but managers need to overperform and it sucks for everyone. In a safe environment, manager and team have a shared understanding of what the goals are, and we work flexibly to acheive them. if something doesn't work, learn from it and try something else. Collectively, we still have to deliver. For sure, we can all be safe and still fail. Safety needs to improve the odds. The manager question is "how do we best ship?" What dynamic best predicts team success for a given goal? The bet is that a safe team will perform better at solving the typically squishy problems that stand between you and shipping well. My belief is that safe teams perform better by allowing more people to engage constructively and critically on any one problem (more traction), by learning efficiently (low latency), and by demonstrating work incrementally and frequently (more cycles). This is failing fast, failing better, and converging well. One additional point of "safety" is the question of "how do you want live?" As manager or team, what do you want work to be like? People flee harsh teams. How do you succeed then?