diff --git a/content/reviews/books/safe-enough-to-soar.md b/content/reviews/books/safe-enough-to-soar.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..89e1f58
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/reviews/books/safe-enough-to-soar.md
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
++++
+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.