31. Psychological Safety

Today, we’ll be talking about psychological safety. We’ll go into what is psychological safety and how important is it in the work space. Having a team that has more cohesive and safe environment is actually more important for performance of the team as a whole than having those 10x developers really cranking out code.

Gossip is a really powerful force against psychological safety in the workplace. The whole talking behind other people’s backs and the inviting in politics that comes with that, which often comes from the highest performers. In today’s episode we dig into what it means to feel psychologically safe in the workplace, learning to identify behaviors that work against psychological safety, and the importance of modeling vulnerability as a leader in the team. This and so much more, all in today’s episode.

Key Points From This Episode:

  • Psychological safety in the workplace.
  • Behaviors that might not be psychologically safe in a team.
  • Why the leader has the potential to make it both psychologically and physically dangerous.
  • What teams can do to learn more about psychological safety.
  • Strategies for figuring out whether or not people feel psychologically safe.
  • Silence vs. violence: understanding the cues for lack of psychological safety.
  • How to read psychological safety through body language.
  • The importance of building empathy for people to increase psychological safety.
  • Why building trust is the key to creating a safer environment.
  • Using non-violent communication in difficult situations.
  • Modeling vulnerability as a leader to create psychological safety in the team.
  • And much more!

Transcript for Episode 31. Psychological Safety

[0:00:01.9] MN: Hello and welcome to The Rabbit Hole, the definitive developer’s podcast in sunny and breezy downtown Manhattan. I’m your host, Michael Nunez. Our co-host today.

[0:00:11.1] DA: Dave Anderson.

[0:00:12.5] MN: Our producer.

[0:00:13.3] WJ: William Jeffries.

[0:00:14.4] MN: Today, we’ll be talking about psychological safety. We’ll go into what it is psychological safety and how important it is in the work space. Dave, you want to drop a line or two on what is psychological safety?

[0:00:26.8] DA: Yeah, I first heard about psychological safety around last November. The New York Times did a piece about Google and their quest to create the perfect team. In that article, they kind of talked about how they found that although there are a lot of high performers at Google, they found that having a team that has more cohesive and safe environment is actually more important for performance of the team as a whole than having those 10x developers really cranking out code.

[0:01:03.8] MN: I think it is important for a team to be in sync and how you say? Like trust each other when it comes to communicating information from one person to another without any hidden messages or like this form of bias to get your idea across.

When everyone’s on the same page, all egos aside, we have this product or this idea that we need to deliver, then naturally the work gets done.

[0:01:36.8] DA: Yeah, we could talk about like some examples of behaviors that might not be psychologically safe in a team?

[0:01:44.6] MN: Yeah, William, do you have any examples on what is or what isn’t psychological safety behavior in the work place?

[0:01:51.9] WJ: I think that gossip is a really powerful force against psychological safety that the whole talking behind other people’s backs and the inviting in politics that comes with that, it’s funny because it often comes from the highest performers.

[0:02:06.6] MN: Right.

[0:02:06.8] WJ: There was a study that was done on chickens actually where they took the hens that produced the most eggs from a bunch of different coups and put them all together thinking that they would create like a super hen team that would produce really well and as a control, they took another group of chickens that had a high production as a whole but the individual members were not special.

What they found was that after one generation, the team of all-star hens had like pecked each other to death and produced very few eggs.

[0:02:45.7] MN: Oh my gosh.

[0:02:46.8] WJ: The team of pretty average hens that were team players had proven even more productive than they were the previous generation.

[0:02:56.7] DA: This is like the Aesop’s fable version of the eagle story.

[0:03:03.0] WJ: Yeah.

[0:03:04.1] MN: So don’t go pecking your individual coworkers, I guess.

[0:03:08.6] DA: Hear that kids?

[0:03:10.6] WJ: It just goes to show, even your top players are susceptible to this problem.

[0:03:16.7] DA: Yeah, you know, when someone has a lot of institutional knowledge about like the code or about the organization and the product that you’re building, it can be, and you have new people that are coming in, they can be kind of easy for them to shut out people who are new and have different perspectives because you know, they have the first word and they can speak the quickest and be like, “Okay, this pattern of developing the code is the best because XY and Z,” and not really lever in for other people to speak up to that.

[0:03:53.2] WJ: yeah, I think psychological safety can be impaired even without anyone doing anything. There could be just by happen stances situation that makes people feel unsafe, psychologically unsafe. Right? The president of the company walks into the room and company of 10,000 people.

All of a sudden everybody’s really uncomfortable and it’s not that that the president did anything wrong, maybe he’s supposed to be in that meeting, it’s just. “Well, I mean, it’s not as safe, people don’t feel as safe.”

[0:04:23.8] MN: Yeah.

[0:04:24.4] DA: Feel less comfortable taking risks, like the visibility of things, gets a lot higher. I know like for applications, there are certain pieces of the application that sometimes people feel very uncomfortable making risks with when it’s related to like making money or you know, customer experience if there’s that fear of failure then it can impede things as well.

[0:04:48.9] MN: Do you think that psychological safety can be like positive energy and psychological safety distributed from the top down or from the bottom up? Which one would actually get more traction in that? Because like as you mentioned, president could walk into a room and you know, everyone gets really quiet and uncomfortable like, “Oh my god, it’s the president, stand straight, you know, good posture, code, make sure you have your tie on,” or something like that. I worked at a place that was like that, where you had to make sure you were to the T even though you were developing.

You’re punching keys all day but you still have to look sharp because the president will be in town, you have to put your tie on. Is there something that can be you know, kind of created in generator from the bottom up where even every member in the team kind of shares the responsibility of being psychologically safe to one another? Then it trickles up or is that something that the organization has to kind of let everyone know that it’s okay to do that?

[0:05:52.3] WJ: I think any member of a team can help to build psychological safety, but the leader has incredible power to break it because the leader can threaten people’s jobs, they can make it actually dangerous, not just psychologically dangerous.

[0:06:05.0] MN: Right.

[0:06:06.2] WJ: To your wellbeing, it is harmful to get fired.

[0:06:08.7] MN: Right. You got to bring money, you don’t want that to stop because of something, whatever reason that its.

[0:06:16.7] DA: Yeah, it’s really hard to change like individual’s behaviors but you can kind of set the environment and build the environment in a way that encourages certain behaviors and like that. If you have the environment in a certain way that it will nudge people towards acting in a better way.

Like if you have the organization with a good culture where everyone knows that they’re respected and, you know, they have a chance to grow and room to make mistakes and that will help them feel more safe and encourage others to be more kind as well.

[0:06:51.6] WJ: Yeah, I like what you’re saying about making mistakes because that’s a thing that everybody has to do in order to learn, in order to do their job. No one aces it 100% of the time and if you are then you’re probably in too easy of a job.

[0:07:06.2] MN: Right.

[0:07:05.8] DA: Yeah.

[0:07:07.1] DA: I remember even the first time I had to send a more high stakes email on the job, there’s room for error and like, you know, communicating an outage or something. I made a mistake and I made the person mad because I over promised and then you realize like, “Oh, setting expectations and communicating things and a way that has more empathy is really important and, you know, kind of creates that environment for better reaction to the same outcome.”

[0:07:40.0] MN: Let’s talk about what can people do as a team to kind of be on the same level when it comes to psychological safety. How does one individual multiple individuals ensure that like everyone kind of understands that this is a thing that will actually bring more productivity to the team?

[0:08:00.7] WJ: Seems like step one is figuring out whether or not people feel psychologically safe, any strategies for that?

[0:08:06.1] DA: Yeah, I mean, a really straight forward thing to do is just ask them. Although, they may not always feel comfortable giving an honest answer, not anonymously. But there’s a Safety Check where you can, you know, get everyone’s opinion about how safe the environment is, you know, one to five, one to 10, whatever the number, it doesn’t really matter too much.

Keeping it anonymous and unseen where things end up. People tend to more towards being silent about how things are. Like if they’re like, “Oh, this is just all 10’s across the board,” but the music doesn’t match up with the words then you can kind of infer that, you may have a problem.

Or, if people are honest and they’re pretty harsh, then, that’s another cue hat something’s wrong, that’s like the opposing cues of unsafe environments, silence and violence. “I’m not comfortable speaking my opinions so I’ll give you all 10’s, or I’m really harsh and I give you a one because I hate you.”

[0:09:09.9] WJ: Yeah, it’s interesting to follow the trends there and see whether psychological safety goes up or down and what that corresponds to. If it’s a particular time of the month or the quarter, depending on who is in the room.

[0:09:20.2] MN: Right, yeah. You mentioned anonymously, is that the only way to kind of gauge on how to get like a good test in the room?

[0:09:33.9] WJ: I think you can also use body language. Like you can get a sense how comfortable people are, sometimes just by talking to them and watching how they respond to you.

[0:09:42.8] MN: Right.

[0:09:43.5] WJ: Are they chatty? Do they tend to respond in one word, yes or no senses? How much eye contact do they make?

[0:09:53.0] MN: Interesting. Yeah, I find, I mean, as we’re going through the conversation of psychological safety, I feel like I inadvertently have a psychological safety exercise when I run a retrospective with the team for the first time. If I have to introduce retros to a team at a client, I try to introduce it in a way to let everyone know that people have the right to share their feelings and to ensure that when you’re sharing those feelings, its’ for the greater good of the product and the team itself.

That lets everyone know like if I’m going to write something, it’s to better the team, it’s not like, “Oh my god, I hate this person or this makes me feel uncomfortable because I’m uncomfortable,” that kind of thing. It’s very interesting to hear, to do things anonymously or with one-on-one’s when you’re speaking with someone but I’ve also have had experience where it’s like with the entire team and once I can get them to understand that it’s for the greater good of the team.

Let’s all leave the egos aside and let’s run this retro and how we can get better for the next sprint or iteration. Everyone kind of like understands that that’s a thing that we all want to accomplish.

[0:11:10.1] DA: Yeah. That’s like the retrospective prime directive, right?

[0:11:13.7] MN: Right.

[0:11:15.0] DA: Where we understand that what was done in the moment was the best that you could have done with the information you had and the experience that you had prior to that and we’re not going to judge you, we’re just going to try and make things better as we go.

[0:11:28.9] MN: Right.

[0:11:30.4] DA: Yeah, episode five, check it out

[0:11:32.3] MN: Check it out, yeah.

[0:11:33.1] DA: Retrospectives.

[0:11:33.9] MN: There you go.

[0:11:35.4] WJ: Yeah, you nailed that. I was just googling the retrospective prime directive to fill you in there, but you didn’t need it.

[0:11:43.0] MN: Dave got it all locked down, that’s what. Yeah, we spoke about some of the ways that we can kind of observe psychological safety, whether it’s in a negative or positive light to an individual. Are there any ways besides like a retrospective in my example on how to increase psychological safety amongst your team mates? In the team? What kind of conversations you would have in a one-on-one or what are the questionnaires you would have anonymously to ensure that you can kind of bring those numbers up, in a positive way?

[0:12:19.5] DA: I feel like just having casual interactions with people and like building empathy for them as other human beings is really important. I think the Google article actually goes into this a little bit how there’s kind of this dichotomy in the workplace where you have your personal self and you have your work self. It’s really hard to kind of put up those barriers and tear them down every day. It becomes a lot easier if you're able to be more open and comfortable with the realities of your life if you have like some challenging family issue that you’re working through then, you know, if your team’s understand of you through that, that makes the team stronger.

[0:12:58.9] MN: I call that a code switch, when you got to switch from work self to personal self and if you don’t have the code switches rigorously then it’s actually easier for you to be yourself at the work place. Which is like the ultimate goal.

[0:13:14.7] DA: Yeah. I think you were talking about your work place catch phrases earlier and it sounds like you’re pretty comfortable with yourself as a code switch.

[0:13:23.7] MN: Yeah, I mean I’m very comfortable. I think it has to do with my peers at the client as well as us as we record because I know the extent of the relationships that I have with these different people at work that allows me to say silly things or kind of be myself if you will to get the work done and we all know that it’s in good graces and the ultimate goal is to get the product out and I think if everyone understands that and they can put the ego aside, then collectively, the work just gets better.

[0:14:02.3] DA: Yeah, I don’t think we’d want it any other way.

[0:14:04.5] MN: Exactly.

[0:14:05.8] WJ: Yeah, I think one thing that you can do when you’re troubleshooting psychologically unsafe environment is to try and figure out what the objective is. Because if you’re in a meeting and two people have just completely different objectives, when the canonical example would be the ops team versus the dev team. And the dev team wants to ship more code faster and the ops team wants to create a more stable production environment. When two groups are working at opposing objectives, it’s going to be unsafe because you're fighting.

[0:14:42.0] MN: Right, yes, exactly.

[0:14:45.2] WJ: So if instead you can find some kind of a mutual purpose like, “We are both working to try and get to a million users.”

[0:14:54.0] MN: Right, yeah.

[0:14:55.8] WJ: Once you’ve appealed to some higher purpose that both parties can agree to, it becomes safer.

[0:15:02.4] DA: Also acknowledging the fact that we know that you're competent at your dev ops job and it’s not that we don’t respect your competency there, it’s just that we need to get these features out and you know, this common goal that we have is something that we both need to work together to get to.

[0:15:22.0] WJ: Totally. Yeah, I think another thing that can hurt psychological safety is lack of respect. Like what you were talking about there with saying explicitly to the person, “I know that you’re good at your job, I respect your work.” I think that really helps because a lot of times, it just comes down to trust.

[0:15:40.1] MN: Right.

[0:15:41.2] WJ: Nobody notices trust until it’s not there.

[0:15:44.3] MN: I agree, like if the trust isn’t there then it could very well like, I don’t want to use the word hostile like as in it’s like dangerous environment but the relationship is very different when you can’t trust one person and you know that other person can’t trust you. It just gets really awkward and you have to clear the air of that to ensure that you can get through this bit to move forward in a positive, psychological safety environment.

[0:16:12.5] WJ: Yeah, it’s about respect. You just can’t negotiate with a person who you don’t respect and who doesn’t respect you. You have to find a way of getting to respect.

[0:16:21.0] DA: Right. In that case, when you are trying to find that common ground, its’ easier to do that face to face. If you’re in the same room dealing with a problem like in a retrospective before, what have you, then it’s easier to find that common ground and empathize with a person as another human being.

One of the things that I feel is really hard with the modern get work flow, poll requests and how anonymous or not really anonymous but like faceless the processes and, you know, when someone’s like picking apart your like spaces and your tabs, it kind of – it feels like people are like kind of potentially attacking your competencies. Especially if you're like new to the team and it’s tough to get used to. I feel like it’s one of the advantages of working closer with someone in like pairing it with them on the code review. Getting face to face so you can tell the exact tone and meaning behind their comments.

[0:17:19.2] WJ: Yeah, it’s not like, “Why didn’t you just use iteration?”

[0:17:23.7] MN: Yeah, its’ like, “Whoa, really? You’re just going to leave that comment there with an emoji?” That’s like the worst. You get emoji with the comment, it’s like, “Ah!”

[0:17:34.6] DA: Bomb.

[0:17:34.3] MN: Yeah, exactly or like the slightly smiling face, you don’t know if that was like a genuine one or like, “Why didn’t you use iteration?” Even then, you know the person who is leaving the comment to know like, “Oh yeah, this is person, that’s the emoji that first came up when he typed colon in GitHub.” I can see that being a problem if you're unfamiliar with your teammates.

Especially as Dave mentioned if you’re new to the team and then suddenly there are people ripping your code apart, it’s uncomfortable. But as you grow with your team and you trust and respect, psychologically you know that they are doing this to maintain the code base at a level that we all agreed upon rather than “I am just picking on you because you made a poor request”.

[0:18:28.2] WJ: And I think the way that you respond to that like if you are offended by the comment that the person left on your code, the way that you respond to that affects psychological safety a lot.

[0:18:39.3] DA: Yeah, right like getting into a defensive posture and assuming that they are being aggressive or whatever will just bring the bar down.

[0:18:50.9] WJ: Yeah, if you punch back you’re like, “Well obviously iteration doesn’t make sense because of reasons X, Y and Z and you would know that if you had finished.”

[0:19:00.8] MN: “If you have ever read a book before,” like you don’t want to say that.

[0:19:05.0] WJ: That’s escalating or conversely moving to silence and just you know shutting off, responding with some sarcastic quip and ignoring things.

[0:19:14.7] MN: Yeah.

[0:19:15.0] DA: Right, or just accepting it and being like, “Okay fine. I’ll do it,” and then let go onto the next round do another poll request and see what happens. It probably won’t go well.

[0:19:26.7] MN: I’ll wait for him to do a poll request. You’ll see, one day. One day. Yeah that alone doesn’t help the team if you are constantly stewing on the next opportunity to one up this one. It just doesn’t help anyone. It doesn’t help the product, it doesn’t help the team, it doesn’t help the organization that you’re in.

[0:19:49.7] DA: Unfortunately it does sound satisfying. Just plotting your revenge.

[0:19:51.4] MN: Yeah, I mean just plotting with emojis. Emojis on GitHub, yes.

[0:19:58.8] DA: Yeah.

[0:20:00.9] MN: So what if the other person just doesn’t care? Or the person is really hostile or, “Stop being such a snowflake, get over it.” I’m not sure what examples, I honestly don’t have an example to say because it’s just like, “Hey no, stop that’s not cool.” Like my immediate response would be that, but what if there’s someone on your team who is just always leaving nasty remarks on GitHub or always has to leave a snap. Not a snap but like if someone leaves like a comment that is almost disrespectful, or gossiping as William mentioned before. How do you deal with that team member to let them know like, “Hey that’s not cool,” kind of thing?

I don’t know because it’s really difficult for me to think of a person who would do that because it’s like, “No dude, we can’t. That’s not cool.” But have you ever experienced any one who does not like to fully comprehend the idea of psychological safety to help the team?

[0:21:07.1] DA: I mean I guess it kind of goes back to the environment thing where it’s hard to make any one person change their behavior. But if you can set up the environment in a way, whoever agrees that these are the ground rules then that’s how we should operate. Like one thing from my time at Recur Center in New York was where they had these social rules where everyone agreed that these are a common set of behaviors that we want to encourage or discourage and it’s okay to call people out if they are doing these things.

If there is a subtle, like a subtle racist comment or sexist comment then it’s okay just to say that, “Hey that made me uncomfortable,” and as you build that environment then it becomes more natural to just bring that up and it’s not about the person. It’s just like, “Hey let’s not do that.”

[0:22:02.8] MN: Yeah.

[0:22:03.3] WJ: Have we talked about non-violent communication before? I feel like that’s a good strategy for situations like this.

[0:22:09.1] DA: What that does entail? I don’t think we have.

[0:22:11.3] WJ: It’s a formula for having difficult conversations like that where you start off by talking about yourself rather than about the other person because talking about the other person tends to make them defensive. So you say going back to this code review example, “When you commented on my code asking why I didn’t just use iteration, I felt angry because I need respect and I felt that the way that you phrased that was disrespectful. So please in the future when you have comments, try to acknowledge that I likely thought about the problem and may have thought of the solution that you are proposing,” or something to that effect.

It is important to own the feeling. You don’t say, “You made me angry,” because in reality you made you angry, right? Like someone else might have gotten that exact same comment and not been angry over it and in fact, you might have gotten that same comment from a different person and not feel angry.

[0:23:12.2] MN: Right but it was this specific person that may have sparked something inside that made you angry.

[0:23:22.2] DA: Right. Then I guess I am trying to build that shared polar screens too late to turn in, to get them to empathize with where you are coming from. Like, “This affected me because of this and I want to understand better why you said that and what we can do to get to a shared understanding and meet our goal of building an awesome product,” or whatever we are doing.

[0:23:43.4] WJ: Yeah because when somebody goads you on as like, “You made me angry when you chewed loudly,” and often your first response is, “Why did that made you angry? That doesn’t make me angry. When other people eat, that’s normal.”

[0:23:56.8] MN: Yeah.

[0:23:57.3] WJ: It just becomes confrontational whereas instead of the person says, “I felt uncomfortable when you were chewing loudly,” then it raises the question, “Oh that is interesting. Why did you feel that way? I wouldn’t have felt that way but now I am kind of curious.” “Oh it’s because you need, whatever,” — insert need that is unmet when someone chews loudly I guess.

[0:24:19.2] MN: Silence. “Oxygen is very good. Oxygen is good when you are chewing food loudly but when I see the food in your mouth, it’s gross.” I guess that’s what it is.

[0:24:29.7] WJ: Yeah, I mean I would just fall back to respect as a need because it is kind of a catch all that most things fall into. So you could say it is disrespectful.

[0:24:36.0] MN: Yeah, right. I don’t need to see the food in your mouth, please.

[0:24:41.7] WJ: So if you’re the leader of a team and you’ve noticed that your team does not feel psychologically safe, what can you do to help with that?

[0:24:48.9] MN: I feel like if I was a team lead, I would try and have a one on one with each individual to kind of like, let them know that these are the rules. I don’t want to say these are the rules that you have to follow but I would love to let that person know like, “Hey I want to make sure that you’re as good as possible and if you are psychologically unsafe then that definitely will hinder the team. If you have any feedback, any comments, any questions, please reach out to me in any way, shape or form because I want to make sure that you’re psychological safe in the workplace and if you feel like I am not allowing that, then you have to let me know right now so that I can fix that so you can feel comfortable working here.”

I mean like me personally, that’s the one thing I don’t want to do to a person is like for someone to think that they are uncomfortable at the workplace is like a huge fear of mine. I would want everyone to be as comfortable as possible so we can produce code and not have to worry about ego checks or who’s better than who and that kind of thing. I don’t need that. So I would want to have a one-on-one to let them know that they have a space for me to call me out if necessary just because I’m the team lead doesn’t mean that you can’t call me out on things.

[0:26:15.6] DA: Right, yeah and I guess that’s a good opportunity to model some vulnerability and like, “Hey these are the things that I feel a little bit uncomfortable about. I need to learn more about doing good unit test in React. So if you can help me with that that would be cool, but yeah, this is where I am at right now.”

[0:26:35.5] WJ: Yeah, modelling that vulnerability I think is really key.

[0:26:38.8] MN: Right because at the end of the day, people need to feel comfortable in the workplace and if the team lead can show that he or she can feel vulnerable with their peers then everyone of them will most likely look at the team lead and kind of realize, “Oh this person is allowing us to feel safe at the workplace. This person has my back because we agreed upon this particular set of rules, so then everyone is going to agree on them.”

[0:27:11.1] WJ: Yeah and you see the leader being vulnerable and no one attacking them and it makes you think, “Well maybe if I am vulnerable no one will attack me either,” and then pretty soon everybody is comfortable making themselves vulnerable and then it’s actually safe.

[0:27:23.9] MN: Hopefully.

[0:27:25.8] DA: There’s always the sea monsters.

[0:27:29.6] MN: There’s always the sea monsters.

[0:27:31.8] DA: Is there anything we missed?

[0:27:33.8] WJ: I think we’re good.

[0:27:35.4] MN: I think, yeah. So psychological safety is important in the workplace, right? Like often times we spend more than 50% of our time communicating with one another. I’m sure when meetings a lot of the time and you spend communicating with your teammates a lot more than you think and if everyone is comfortable in the team, then communication can ebb and flow from one individual to the other to ensure that you can deliver an amazing product.

[0:28:06.1] DA: Yeah, shared idea, shared knowledge, profit.

[0:28:09.4] MN: There you go. Well, you’re welcome. That’s how you make the money. Cool, I just want to mention to those out there who are interested in open source projects, The Rabbit Hole is sponsoring a project called RemoteRetro. It’s an open source retrospective tool written in front end react and back end in Elixir.

[0:28:32.0] DA: Ooh Elixir.

[0:28:33.4] MN: Yeah, Elixir-Elixir, alchemist, to all alchemist out there RemoteRetro is an application that you can use to have retrospectives so you can collaborate with one another via your browser. So one example that we had using it in The Rabbit Hole was when we had our previous episodes. One of the episodes, excuse me, was with Mr. Ratajczak on the remote.

[0:28:59.8] WJ: Yeah, David.

[0:29:00.9] MN: We had David Ratajczak on The Rabbit Hole talking about being remote and what are some of the pros and cons about that.

[0:29:07.4] WJ: And we actually used the tool.

[0:29:09.3] MN: Yeah, we used RemoteRetro. It’s like, “Hey how do we use this thing?” and then we went over to GitHub and kind of figured out the configurations and got that started and it was really, really cool to be able to have a seamless Retro with someone remotely who was able to contribute just as well as anyone else in the room who is in the same room. It was really cool. I would suggest everyone to follow the show notes. We’ll probably have a link to the GitHub Repo.

[0:29:40.2] WJ: And add some features because there were definitely some like goo glaring missing features not to criticize the team, which is working hard and delivering lots of value for no money.

[0:29:49.2] DA: Yeah they are doing some sweet refactors on the architecture I think so, it’s featured time.

[0:29:53.6] WJ: It’s moving really fast.

[0:29:55.7] MN: Yeah, so RemoteRetro if you are interested in React or in Elixir, which is what everyone seems to love both React and Elixir, feel free to check out RemoteRetro.

[0:30:05.1] WJ: The community seems really friendly too.

[0:30:07.4] DA: Very psychologically safe.

[0:30:09.9] MN: Yes, it’s a very psychologically safe environment for you in an open source community like RemoteRetro. So yeah, check it out. Please do so and feel free to hit us up at twitter.com/radiofreerabbit. I’d like to thank my co-host, thanks for coming on down.

[0:30:28.1] DA: Thanks man.

[0:30:28.9] MN: I like to thank our producer.

[0:30:30.7] WJ: Anytime.

[0:30:31.7] MN: Thanks for coming on down. This is The Rabbit Hole. We’ll see you next time.

Links and Resources:

The Rabbit Hole on Twitter

Safety Check Tool

Episode 5: Retrospectives