> > psychological safety — a group culture that the Harvard Business School > professor Amy Edmondson defines as a ‘‘shared belief held by members of a > team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.’’ Psychological > safety is ‘‘a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject > or punish someone for speaking up,’’ Edmondson wrote in a study published > in 1999 > <http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=e55fd191-97da-4b52-a54d-d1ae6abb0a6e%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=2003235&db=bth>. > ‘‘It describes a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and > mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.’’
This is precisely why I like being a part of #releng, and I think it does indeed contribute quite a bit to working effectively "#together." On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Subramanya Sastry <[email protected]> wrote: > I read that article as well .. To me, this section stood out: > > *"What Project Aristotle has taught people within Google is that no one > wants to put on a ‘‘work face’’ when they get to the office. No one wants > to leave part of their personality and inner life at home. But to be fully > present at work, to feel ‘‘psychologically safe,’’ we must know that we can > be free enough, sometimes, to share the things that scare us without fear > of recriminations. We must be able to talk about what is messy or sad, to > have hard conversations with colleagues who are driving us crazy. We can’t > be focused just on efficiency"* > > > On 02/26/2016 12:20 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > > Forwarding this to a wider list, since I think it's of interest to anyone > who works with teams. > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Kristen Lans wrote: > >> >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html >> - > > > It's a pretty long article, so for those who are short on time, here is my > very very abbreviated tl;dr: > > Google did a bunch of research to try go figure out why some teams are > effective and others are not. > > "First, on the good teams, members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a > phenomenon the researchers referred to as 'equality in distribution of > conversational turn-taking.' " Note that there are a number of styles to > achieve this, including talking over each other, but fairly and with > consent. > > "Second, the good teams all had high ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ — a > fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on > their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues." > > "But Google’s data indicated that psychological safety, more than anything > else, was critical to making a team work." > > > Kevin Smith > Agile Coach, Wikimedia Foundation > > > > > _______________________________________________ > teampractices mailing > [email protected]https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices > > > > _______________________________________________ > teampractices mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices > >
_______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
