Julio Biason
4 years ago
1 changed files with 61 additions and 0 deletions
@ -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. |
Loading…
Reference in new issue