[teampractices] [FYI] connection between great teams and psychological safety

[Mukunda Modell]

>
> psychological safety — a group culture that the Harvard Business School
> professor Amy Edmondson defines as a ‘‘shared belief held by members of a
> team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.’’ Psychological
> safety is ‘‘a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject
> or punish someone for speaking up,’’ Edmondson wrote in a study published
> in 1999
> <http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=e55fd191-97da-4b52-a54d-d1ae6abb0a6e%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=2003235&db=bth>.
> ‘‘It describes a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and
> mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.’’


This is precisely why I like being a part of #releng, and I think it does
indeed contribute quite a bit to working effectively "#together."


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Subramanya Sastry <ssastry at wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> I read that article as well .. To me, this section stood out:
>
> *"What Project Aristotle has taught people within Google is that no one
> wants to put on a ‘‘work face’’ when they get to the office. No one wants
> to leave part of their personality and inner life at home. But to be fully
> present at work, to feel ‘‘psychologically safe,’’ we must know that we can
> be free enough, sometimes, to share the things that scare us without fear
> of recriminations. We must be able to talk about what is messy or sad, to
> have hard conversations with colleagues who are driving us crazy. We can’t
> be focused just on efficiency"*
>
>
> On 02/26/2016 12:20 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
> Forwarding this to a wider list, since I think it's of interest to anyone
> who works with teams.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Kristen Lans  wrote:
>
>>
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html
>> -
>
>
> It's a pretty long article, so for those who are short on time, here is my
> very very abbreviated tl;dr:
>
> Google did a bunch of research to try go figure out why some teams are
> effective and others are not.
>
> "First, on the good teams, members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a
> phenomenon the researchers referred to as 'equality in distribution of
> conversational turn-taking.' " Note that there are a number of styles to
> achieve this, including talking over each other, but fairly and with
> consent.
>
> "Second, the good teams all had high ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ — a
> fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on
> their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues."
>
> "But Google’s data indicated that psychological safety, more than anything
> else, was critical to making a team work."
>
>
> Kevin Smith
> Agile Coach, Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> teampractices mailing listteampractices at lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> teampractices mailing list
> teampractices at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20160229/2cc5fdfb/attachment.html>