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