From 23979d0cf2e0b6ed1c5e0aaab6c4676dfb8fdf57 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julio Biason Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:41:20 -0300 Subject: [PATCH] Book review: Safe Enough to Soar --- content/reviews/books/safe-enough-to-soar.md | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+) create mode 100644 content/reviews/books/safe-enough-to-soar.md 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. + + + +{{ 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.