I suppose REC didn't include the link so as to avoid implicitly encouraging others to read the article. I have no such scruples:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html On 02/29/2016 10:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Why should less productive individuals enjoy “psychological safety” if they aren’t essential to getting the job done?
I think the answer to this is because it's not a zero-sum game (or... they don't think it's zero sum). What is lost by ensuring psychological safety for the less productive, or even the negative productive, is more than (not ≥, but >) compensated for by the benefits. Individually, of course, we all have to decide how much we'll indulge our coworkers' prattling on about useless junk, damaging our individual sense of fulfillment. What type of prospective employee would sacrifice personal measures of productivity for group measures? -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
