You can not select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
62 lines
3.1 KiB
62 lines
3.1 KiB
3 years ago
|
+++
|
||
|
|
title = "Safe Enough to Soar - Fred Miller, Judith Kat"
|
||
|
|
date = 2021-03-29
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
[taxonomies]
|
||
|
|
tags = ["reviews", "books", "books:2021", "team building", "communication",
|
||
|
|
"stars:1", "fred miller", "judith kat"]
|
||
|
|
+++
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
[GoodReads Summary](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38508128-safe-enough-to-soar):
|
||
|
|
Some organizations pay a great deal of attention to ensuring the physical
|
||
|
|
safety of their team members, but do the team members feel safe enough to speak
|
||
|
|
up and raise tough concerns or share bold and still-in-formation ideas? In this
|
||
|
|
book, bestselling authors and inclusion experts Frederick A. Miller and Judith
|
||
|
|
H. Katz introduce the concept of "interaction safety" and demonstrate how it
|
||
|
|
can help create a work environment of trust, inclusion, and collaboration.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<!-- more -->
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
{{ stars(stars=1) }}
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I do understand where the book is aiming for -- giving
|
||
|
|
people a voice, no matter what -- but I believe it aged badly, mostly due the
|
||
|
|
way culture changed. Also, the analogies/anecdotes are a bit too far fetched,
|
||
|
|
which actually hide the real purpose of "interaction safety".
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
So, what it is this about: This is, basically, "give everyone a voice, and let
|
||
|
|
them exercise it". All good, I totally agree with this, and a good leadership
|
||
|
|
should always worry about it.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
But what isn't specified -- and what I meant by the way the culture change --
|
||
|
|
is that it misses the point that people will talk to each other more things
|
||
|
|
that just work. How do you give a voice to someone that denies the holocaust?
|
||
|
|
Should you give a chance to someone that keeps bringing "election fraud" in
|
||
|
|
every possible instance? Those are part of a culture shift, in which we started
|
||
|
|
to being more stuff into work. Sure, it makes totally sense to get new input on
|
||
|
|
work subjects, but that would require a good culture inside the company to
|
||
|
|
leave controversial statements *outside work* outside, and the book doesn't
|
||
|
|
cover that (and I'm all in for controversial statements about work itself).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Also, it lacks some conflict resolution: What if I give a voice to someone,
|
||
|
|
explain the problem with their idea, but they can't concede that it doesn't
|
||
|
|
make sense? Would that person feel fine with it? How do you disarm the possible
|
||
|
|
bomb when constant suggestions are dropped for one reason or the other?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The analogies are also a bad point of the book. Since the authors describe four
|
||
|
|
levels of "interaction safety" in the book, they put a little story for the
|
||
|
|
level. And, obviously, the first level is pretty bad, while the fourth one is
|
||
|
|
all marvelous and people love their work for that. And it gets tiring very
|
||
|
|
early seeing "interaction safety" instead of "conversations" or something like
|
||
|
|
it.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Another problem: The lack of concrete points on how to act. Sure, there are
|
||
|
|
lists like "A company in X level would have this" which you can infer some
|
||
|
|
actions, but a list of "start writing X down", "when you realize comments that
|
||
|
|
sound racist, call the person to explain why they shouldn't say it, instead of
|
||
|
|
calling them out in public" -- which **is** a real thing people should do
|
||
|
|
to provide safety to the group -- would be a lot more helpful than anything.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Again, I'm not against the aim of the book, I just dislike the way it is
|
||
|
|
presented.
|