[qumpis]

Can you elaborate on "and finding people who can role model a healthy exchange of rough-draft ideas is always a great boon for the team's psychological safety"? Would the opposite of this be flushing the idea maximally (and taking longer) before presenting it to the team?

[q7xvh97o2pDhNrh]

Yes, exactly. You want people to be able to say things like, "Hey, here's a crazy idea..." or "What if we..." without having to worry that they'll be torn apart instantly.

According to Jony Ive, Steve Jobs was exceptional at nurturing this kind of creative environment. He describes it perfectly in this WSJ article [1] from a couple years ago:

> As thoughts grew into ideas, however tentative, however fragile, he recognized that this was hallowed ground. He had such a deep understanding and reverence for the creative process. He understood creating should be afforded rare respect—not only when the ideas were good or the circumstances convenient.

> Ideas are fragile. If they were resolved, they would not be ideas, they would be products. It takes determined effort not to be consumed by the problems of a new idea. Problems are easy to articulate and understand, and they take the oxygen. Steve focused on the actual ideas, however partial and unlikely.

The other part of it is that ideas, as fragile as they are, can blossom and transform if you can get multiple people and multiple different perspectives involved in the early stages. That's why it's so powerful to have this kind of culture on a team; it lifts everyone up.

The problem with polishing the idea into a final draft before sharing it is that — whether or not it's good — it's almost guaranteed to not be as good as it could have been. And, by the time the "final draft" is ready, it's too late to get involved — all the interesting rabbit holes and tangents and possibilities have already been pruned away.

[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/jony-ive-steve-jobs-memories-10...

[OmarShehata]

Not the OP but I would say: yes exactly. A culture where you only see team members presenting ideas in their done state leads to overall worse solutions because people aren't collaborating & giving each other feedback on ideas-in-progress.

[temporallobe]

“psychological safety” is a newish buzz term that is basically an excuse for people who can’t handle criticism or debate, which I am seeing as increasingly common among younger devs. It is and should always be ok to freely exchange ideas without fear of being wrong, because everyone can be wrong. Even Einstein was occasionally wrong.

[wfme]

Your comment is a good example of a lack of psychological safety - you shoot the concept down with an intellectually dishonest argument, effectively ridiculing the idea.

The problem you describe is the part that is directly addressed by psychological safety. If you can provide a wrong answer and have people critique it but without ridicule, then you have a “safe” environment where people are comfortable to provide solutions without certainty on their optimality.

[ebiester]

It's the exact opposite. A team with strong psychological safety is exactly the type of group that knows how to present critique and debate, even between junior, senior, and management participants.

The point is that participants feel safe challenging an idea.

[buttscicles]

Psychological safety is what allows people to exchange ideas and be wrong without fear of it being used against them