No, it's more about creating an environment such that you can tell your "boss" they fucked up, and how, they will say "you're right, lets fix it."
> One engineer, for instance, had told researchers that his team leader was "direct and straightforward, which creates a [psychological] safe space for you to take risks."
However the rest of the article went onto to talking more about expressing one's feelings and vulnerability.
I think this is a key difference between Google's and the US Military's approach to team building.
the military and google are very different organizations with different goals, so it's unlikely they will be run the same
a perfect team in the military will not look like a perfect team at google.
both organizations will wisely punt to other organizations when they come up against a challenge outside of their domains of expertise.
for example: the military does not design and build its own aircraft/weapons/tanks, nor does google engineer and build its datacenters
Ha, I actually did, but thanks. Also good guess on my team name (commando) ;)
You are right though that it's not a 1:1 substitution but the principles align well.
- pre-selection of qualified individuals
- dictatorial authority precluding much superfluous decision making
- martial and capital punishment casting a long shadow
- high stakes besides all of this
- weeding out according to fitness long before harmony is reached, where the weak are pruned mercilessly
- shitty HR negotiations
- lies during interviews, that can neither be proven nor disproved
- grooming habits
- sexual tension
- and the rest of all of our human foiblesI can't quite get my mind to really understand why some viewpoints respond with aggression to ideas like what the article calls psychological safety.
I think it might have to do with how it's the aggression itself that were being called on to remove.