Scan barcode
dashtaisen's review
fast-paced
1.5
“The Fearless Organization” is a book about psychological safety, which is an important topic. Like so many Harvard Business School titles, this was a TED talk that became a book, and didn’t weather the transition all that well.
My favorite part of the book is where Prof. Edmonson talks about her team’s qualitative study of why people don’t speak up at work. She identifies several themes in why people hesitate to express dissent or share bad news. That’s a super interesting starting point to talk about the power dynamics in workplaces, and how that affects what people say and don’t say.
Unfortunately, the book doesn’t go in that direction. Right from the start, she says that the systems of performance reviews, firings, and layoffs are here to stay, and she’s going to focus on “interpersonal” psychological safety: essentially, managers being better listeners, admitting when they don’t know things, encouraging “candor,” and maybe creating a couple of new meetings.
The anecdotes (this is a business book, so of course it’s mostly anecdotes) mostly read like PR puff pieces. Most of the examples are exactly what you’d expect from a book like this, but unfortunately some of them are pretty disturbing. Prof. Edmonson conspicuously avoids talking about power dynamics even though the topic is always right below the surface. She talks about #MeToo as an example of how a culture of silence is dangerous, and after talking about Pixar Braintrust, she rightly points out John Lasseter’s sexual harassment allegations and subsequent removal. But her conclusion is that “unwanted physical attention easily undermines hard-earned trust”, which is, uhhhhhhh, certainly *a* way of saying “don’t sexually harass people and don’t create an environment where sexual harassers can thrive”. In the same chapter, she praises Google X for their approaches to rewarding failure – at the time she wrote this book, Richard DeVaul presumably hadn’t yet resigned from X because of sexually harassing people. Later, she discusses James Damore’s firing from Google, basically summarizing it as follows: lots of other people have discussed whether Google should have fired him, and she’s not going to express an opinion either way, it’s just an important example of how companies need to think carefully about whether firing someone is productive and leads to overall learning for the company. It’s hard for me to read this as anything but trying as hard as possible not to offend the fragile egos of the managers who are reading the book, who would blanch at seeing the word “misogyny” in a business text.
Prof. Edmonson includes an “FAQ” towards the end of the book. Her advice to workers dealing with intransigent bosses is to “influence” via “curiosity, compassion, and commitment”, and to create “pockets” of candor an excellence. I was hoping for a commentary on the power imbalance inherent in the fact that bosses evaluate their reports, but workers have no recourse for demanding accountability towards managers. Just kidding! I knew that was never going to happen. Like so many books in the genre, this is basically a guide for managers on how to feel like less of an asshole, in a system that fundamentally requires people to be assholes. Actually *being* less of an asshole would require questioning their own power and radically redistributing it.
My favorite part of the book is where Prof. Edmonson talks about her team’s qualitative study of why people don’t speak up at work. She identifies several themes in why people hesitate to express dissent or share bad news. That’s a super interesting starting point to talk about the power dynamics in workplaces, and how that affects what people say and don’t say.
Unfortunately, the book doesn’t go in that direction. Right from the start, she says that the systems of performance reviews, firings, and layoffs are here to stay, and she’s going to focus on “interpersonal” psychological safety: essentially, managers being better listeners, admitting when they don’t know things, encouraging “candor,” and maybe creating a couple of new meetings.
The anecdotes (this is a business book, so of course it’s mostly anecdotes) mostly read like PR puff pieces. Most of the examples are exactly what you’d expect from a book like this, but unfortunately some of them are pretty disturbing. Prof. Edmonson conspicuously avoids talking about power dynamics even though the topic is always right below the surface. She talks about #MeToo as an example of how a culture of silence is dangerous, and after talking about Pixar Braintrust, she rightly points out John Lasseter’s sexual harassment allegations and subsequent removal. But her conclusion is that “unwanted physical attention easily undermines hard-earned trust”, which is, uhhhhhhh, certainly *a* way of saying “don’t sexually harass people and don’t create an environment where sexual harassers can thrive”. In the same chapter, she praises Google X for their approaches to rewarding failure – at the time she wrote this book, Richard DeVaul presumably hadn’t yet resigned from X because of sexually harassing people. Later, she discusses James Damore’s firing from Google, basically summarizing it as follows: lots of other people have discussed whether Google should have fired him, and she’s not going to express an opinion either way, it’s just an important example of how companies need to think carefully about whether firing someone is productive and leads to overall learning for the company. It’s hard for me to read this as anything but trying as hard as possible not to offend the fragile egos of the managers who are reading the book, who would blanch at seeing the word “misogyny” in a business text.
Prof. Edmonson includes an “FAQ” towards the end of the book. Her advice to workers dealing with intransigent bosses is to “influence” via “curiosity, compassion, and commitment”, and to create “pockets” of candor an excellence. I was hoping for a commentary on the power imbalance inherent in the fact that bosses evaluate their reports, but workers have no recourse for demanding accountability towards managers. Just kidding! I knew that was never going to happen. Like so many books in the genre, this is basically a guide for managers on how to feel like less of an asshole, in a system that fundamentally requires people to be assholes. Actually *being* less of an asshole would require questioning their own power and radically redistributing it.
Content Warnings
Minor: Sexual harassment
dllh's review
4.0
Lots of good info in this one. The writing is fluid and goes down easy, and the author provides data to back up what is ultimately a pretty common sense premise. Well worth a read if you manage a team.
annamccachren's review
informative
medium-paced
3.75
The inside flap claims it’s a “step-by-step” guide to creating psychological safety, but that seems to overpromise what’s actually in the book. There are plenty of case studies to demonstrate its value, but someone who is picking up this book likely doesn’t need the majority of the book to be spend convincing them of psychological safety’s importance. That said, it’s a useful introduction to the concept and does have a framework to get you started in thinking through how it could be applied in your workplace.
sebswann's review
4.0
"...psychological safety is about candor and willingness to engage in productive conflict so as to learn from different points of view."
"The basic asymmetry of the psychological and societal forces favoring silence over voice, or self-protection over self-expression, will always be with us. But the rewards of voice and silence are also asymmetrical. Self-protection remains a hollow victory compared to the fulfillment that comes from actively serving an inspiring purpose and being a part of a tam that's able to accomplish an ambitious goal. It's the difference between playing not to lose and playing to win. Playing not to lose is a mindset that focuses, consciously or not, on protecting against the downside; playing to win, in contrast is focused on the upside, seeks opportunity, and necessarily takes risks. When we're playing not to los, we play it safe.
"Perhaps the best way to experience psychological safety is to act as if you have it already. See what happens! The chances are you'll be creating a safe and more energizing environment for those around you as well. Exercising a small act of leadership."
If you like business books about organizational effectiveness; Edmondson presents a persuasive argument on the benefits and necessity of psychological safety and offers suggestions for how to build and sustain it in our own organizations.
"The basic asymmetry of the psychological and societal forces favoring silence over voice, or self-protection over self-expression, will always be with us. But the rewards of voice and silence are also asymmetrical. Self-protection remains a hollow victory compared to the fulfillment that comes from actively serving an inspiring purpose and being a part of a tam that's able to accomplish an ambitious goal. It's the difference between playing not to lose and playing to win. Playing not to lose is a mindset that focuses, consciously or not, on protecting against the downside; playing to win, in contrast is focused on the upside, seeks opportunity, and necessarily takes risks. When we're playing not to los, we play it safe.
"Perhaps the best way to experience psychological safety is to act as if you have it already. See what happens! The chances are you'll be creating a safe and more energizing environment for those around you as well. Exercising a small act of leadership."
If you like business books about organizational effectiveness; Edmondson presents a persuasive argument on the benefits and necessity of psychological safety and offers suggestions for how to build and sustain it in our own organizations.
brookeyt79's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
4.0
A must-read for anyone in leadership.