Category: Culture

  • When LLMs help humans understand themselves

    When LLMs help humans understand themselves

    Yesterday I had a profound experience.

    It started with a small question: what the heck do I stand for as a leader?

    Like everyone else having an idkfa moment these days, I decided to test my principles using an LLM and the collective wisdom of people that have thought about this for much longer than I have (and without the crutch of AIs).

    Cue our panel of experts:

    1. Peter Drucker – Management pioneer who developed foundational concepts like management by objectives and knowledge work
    2. Simon Sinek – Known for the “Start With Why” framework and leadership that inspires action
    3. Brené Brown – Research professor specializing in courage, vulnerability, and empathy in leadership
    4. Jim Collins – Author of “Good to Great” who researches what transforms companies from average to excellent
    5. Daniel Goleman – Pioneered emotional intelligence application in leadership effectiveness
    6. John C. Maxwell – Leadership expert behind “The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership”
    7. Patrick Lencioni – Organizational health expert focused on team dynamics and leadership clarity
    8. Adam Grant – Organizational psychologist specializing in originality, motivation, and meaning
    9. Amy Edmondson – Harvard professor known for psychological safety research in high-performing teams
    10. Marshall Goldsmith – Executive coach focusing on behavioral changes that drive leadership success

    Their mission, should the AI role-playing as them was to accept it, was to give me a series of questions that would help me articulate my authentic leadership approach.

    Starting with Peter Drucker, what questions would he ask me if he was guiding me through this process? Have the next expert review and iterate on the previous one’s answer, until they’ve all contributed and we’ve reached a final set of questions that would allow me to distill my philosophy in one paragraph.

    And so they did.

    When I asked the gang to review my answers, a particular comment stood out:

    Simon Sinek would commend your purpose-centered approach but might challenge you to articulate why this purpose matters to you personally to make it even more compelling.

    (the two books of Simon siting at my bookshelf, still unread, gave me disapproving looks)

    Out of curiosity, and a bit of guilt, I pulled on that thread:

    Ask Sinek to guide me through this via a dialog where he asks me a question, I respond, and then he considers my answer and moves to his next question. This dialog should continue until we’ve succeeded in articulating why this purpose matters to me personally.

    This journey you’ll have to experience for yourself, trust me.

    As for where I ended up, see the description in my profile.

    In the meantime, I’ve got some reading to do 😉

    references:

    Photo by Yosef Futsum on Unsplash

  • The true cost of principles

    The true cost of principles

    Sean’s voice crackled through the loudspeaker: “Can you hear me?”

    “Yes”, muttered the director.

    “Look Stacy, no one’s more upset than us. We’re in a tough situation, I know.

    The launch should’ve happened a month ago. Everyone’s been working non-stop.”

    “Then why didn’t it?” she interrupted.

    Sean continued.

    “This was supposed to be a quick experiment. Two sprints max.”

    “I know!” Stacy’s frustration carried over as if he were in the room.

    “But then we needed CRM integration. Product wanted customizable widgets. Compliance had a pile of checks. Engineering guidelines changed mid-stream… And when I tried reducing scope, nothing could be cut from the MVP.

    We must decide what’s more important. Either it’s an experiment with rough edges, or it’s a sure bet that we build properly. Moving the goalposts constantly helps nobody.”

    —-

    Most of us have experienced this conversation.

    When everything is a priority, nothing is.

    Time is finite. Demand always exceeds capacity. Teams without power to triage effectively won’t be able to deliver—the classic tragedy of the commons.

    Some leaders try to avoid the costs of hard choices by saying yes to everything. But this is just kicking the can down the road. Sooner or later, the non-decision will trigger a crisis.

    “Passion for excellence”, “Customer first”, “Bias for action”.

    Fine principles, but without ruthless prioritization they are nothing more than hollow words, worthless when facing a hard choice.

    And in unstructured environments, they become tools of control; swords hanging constantly above people’s heads.

    “Bring me a rock—no, not that one.”

    For a principle to have value, it must carry a cost:

    – User happiness over technical convenience.

    – System stability over delivery speed.

    Only when these choices are consciously made, and written down, they become useful.

    To do this, start by examining your constraints: budget, time, talent, compliance adherence. Anything that you can’t easily get more of.

    Which resource is most scarce?

    This scarcity is your guide for prioritizing.

    Compliment this by understanding what stakeholders actually need (yes, including those “pesky” end users).

    What is more important for them?

    Finally, consider the classes of deliverables.

    Should they all treated equally?

    Are there any that can tolerate compromises in the above?

    For example:

    – Does every experimental feature require the same rigorous test coverage as your core platform?

    – Does that quick experiment truly warrant the same legal scrutiny as your flagship product?

    – Should the rarely used feature have the same polish as the app’s main flows?

    We get in situations like the above, when we assume the answer is “yes” to all such questions.

    To avoid it, you must be willing to sacrifice some things for what matters.

    It’s simple but not easy. That’s how you get real principles.

    references

    Photo by bady abbas on Unsplash

  • Building Fearless Engineering Teams with Psychological Safety

    Building Fearless Engineering Teams with Psychological Safety

    Introduction

    Engineering teams shine when individuals feel safe to speak up, take risks, and share ideas without fear of embarrassment or retaliation. This concept, known as psychological safety, is a cornerstone of high-performing teams. Google’s Project Aristotle found that psychological safety was the most critical factor in determining team success, even more important than individual talent or work structure (Google Re:Work).

    As Dr. Amy Edmondson explains:

    Psychological safety isn’t about being nice. It’s about giving candid feedback, openly admitting mistakes, and learning from each other

    Despite its importance, psychological safety is often misunderstood or overlooked in fast-paced engineering environments. How can leaders cultivate it while maintaining accountability and high standards?

    What is Psychological Safety?

    Psychological safety refers to the belief that one won’t be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.

    In engineering teams, this translates to:

    • Feeling comfortable admitting mistakes and learning from them.
    • Asking for help without fear of being seen as incompetent.
    • Sharing ideas and concerns without worrying about negative consequences.
    • Engaging in healthy debate without conflict turning personal.

    Why Psychological Safety Matters in Engineering Teams

    Psychological safety has been directly linked to higher innovation, stronger collaboration, and better engagement (Google Re:Work). Here’s why it’s crucial:

    • Encourages Innovation – Engineers are more likely to experiment and take creative risks when they don’t fear failure (Edmondson, 2018).
    • Reduces Costly Mistakes – A culture of transparency helps surface problems before they escalate.
    • Increases Engagement & Retention – Employees who feel psychologically safe are more committed and less likely to leave.
    • Strengthens Collaboration – Open discussions lead to better problem-solving and team cohesion.

    As Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, emphasizes:

    Empathy makes you a better innovator. If you can understand what others are feeling, you can build products that truly resonate

    A psychologically safe environment fosters this kind of empathy, allowing engineers to build better solutions together.

    How to Build Psychological Safety in Engineering Teams

    1. Model Vulnerability as a Leader

    Leaders set the tone. Admitting when you don’t know something or acknowledging your own mistakes signals that it’s safe for others to do the same (Edmondson, 2018).

    2. Encourage Open Dialogue

    Foster an environment where engineers feel comfortable speaking up by actively seeking their opinions and making space for differing perspectives.

    3. Normalize Giving & Receiving Feedback

    Constructive feedback should be a habit, not a stressful event. Studies show that psychologically safe teams engage in more frequent and honest feedback, leading to better learning outcomes (Google Re:Work).

    4. Reward Learning, Not Just Success

    Encourage experimentation by recognizing effort, not just outcomes. Leaders who promote a growth mindset within their teams help engineers see failures as learning opportunities (Edmondson, 2018).

    5. Create a No-Blame Postmortem Culture

    When something goes wrong, focus on learning rather than assigning blame. A blameless culture ensures that mistakes become opportunities for improvement rather than sources of fear.

    Conclusion

    Psychological safety isn’t about making work comfortable—it’s about making it safe to take smart risks, share ideas, and learn from failures (Edmondson, 2018).

    Research confirms that teams with strong psychological safety experience higher collaboration, better innovation, and lower turnover (Google Re:Work). Leaders who prioritize this will see stronger problem-solving, better retention, and a culture of continuous learning.

    As Satya Nadella puts it:

    The learn-it-all does better than the know-it-all

    This is a great parting remark that emphasises the potential of continuous growth for both individuals and teams.

    references

    • Edmondson, Amy C. The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Wiley, 2018.
    • Google Re:Work. Project Aristotle: Understanding Team Effectiveness. https://rework.withgoogle.com/
    • Nadella, Satya. Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone. Harper Business, 2017.

  • The Power of Effective 1-on-1s

    The Power of Effective 1-on-1s

    Have you ever considered rescheduling your next 1-on-1? After all, you just spoke during standup, right? Maybe there’s a looming deadline demanding all your attention. Well, these scenarios are actually the best reasons to meet. If you or the other person aren’t seeing the value in your 1-on-1s, it might be time to revisit your meeting structure and goals.

    (more…)